BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 January),
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 19 March.

Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 January),
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 19 March.

Protection of Children in England

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Progress Report, dated 12 March 2009, of Lord Laming on the Protection of Children in England.— (Chris Mole.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Housing

Andy Reed: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on student housing need.

David Lammy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Housing Minister at the end of January.

Andy Reed: I know that my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues understand the issues of studentification and of meeting housing needs in constituencies like ours. He will recognise that Loughborough is held up as a beacon of good practice in dealing with the problems that arise in the partnership that exists. Can he give an assurance that he is applying pressure to the Department for Communities and Local Government to give local authorities the planning powers that they need to prevent such problems arising in other constituencies across the country, and to reduce the problems associated with studentification in areas like mine?

David Lammy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on doggedly continuing to champion the issue, which arises in constituencies across the country. Indeed, in my constituency there are occasionally problems in relation to the many houses in multiple occupation in which students live. Certain things can be done to help local communities, such as running helplines and appointing community liaison officers, but my hon. Friend is right that planning issues are central, which is why we continue to have dialogue with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am pleased that they will consult in the spring on the Ecotec report.

Apprenticeships (Mitcham and Morden)

Siobhain McDonagh: What steps he is taking to increase the number of apprenticeship places in Mitcham and Morden.

Si�n Simon: Last year 240 people started apprenticeships in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, the highest number for five years. We are taking a wide range of steps to encourage more people to take up apprenticeship places and more employers to offer high quality places. We have established an apprenticeships taskforce to oversee expansion of the programme in the capital. Last year we saw a record high with 225,000 people starting an apprenticeship, up from a pathetic 65,000 under the Conservatives. The Prime Minister recently announced a 140 million package to provide an extra 35,000 apprenticeship places, of which at least 21,000 will be in the public sector.

Siobhain McDonagh: We are delighted that next year Merton college will have twice the amount of funding and twice the number of apprentices in training. Does my hon. Friend agree that in these difficult financial times, it is more important than ever for the Government to confirm their commitment to giving young people skills through apprenticeships?

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend is an unmatched champion of apprenticeships and of the needs of young people and the importance of skills in her constituency. She has put her finger on it. In times such as these, the Government should support skills, training and young people. What they should not do is cut Train to Gain or 610 million from the skills, science and universities budget, as the Opposition would do.

Unemployment (New Skills)

Dari Taylor: What steps his Department is taking to assist those who lose their jobs in acquiring new skills.

John Denham: This is exactly the time to increase investment in skills and training. We need to provide real help now. The Government are spending 4.7 billion on adult skills this year, which will help about 3 million people get the skills that they need to get on in work. In addition, we are providing more than 240 million to support those facing redundancy or who have become unemployed, allocating a further 140 million for 35,000 extra apprenticeship places, trebling the number of career development loans, and supporting the Higher Education Funding Council's 50 million fund to help universities provide swift and responsive help to employers and employees.

Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that women have always been seen as the reserve army of labour? What is the Department doing to ensure that women equally access skill training at this time?

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We keep a close eye on that. I am pleased to tell her that on the most recent figures, a clear majority of those benefiting from further education and skills spending were women61 per cent. We have looked at the number of people accessing nextstep for advice. Just under half are women. In addition to the programmes that I have mentioned, we are working with colleges to make sure that the offer that they make on skills is increasingly flexible and able to meet the needs of those who may have to reskill as a result of the downturn.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State be willing to meet members of the William Morris Craft Fellowship scheme to discuss what can be done to encourage more young people, and those who have lost their jobs and are looking for other careers, into a career in the crafts?

John Denham: I cannot imagine anything more delightful than the prospect of a meeting with members of the William Morris Craft Fellowship scheme. The hon. Gentleman has championed this issue over many years. Yes; among the many high-technology, highly science-based, high-value-added activities that will be the core of our economy in the future, there will be space for traditional craft skills, which need to be developed. Let us have a meeting and see what can be done.

Anne Moffat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to celebrate people who achieve decent skills in any sort of industrywhether the manufacturing, nuclear or construction industries? It is easy to get an academic to give a view on something, but it is difficult to get hold of a skilled plumber to fix the loo. Surely we need to celebrate what those people do.

John Denham: I entirely agree. It is pleasing to see that many, if not all, further education colleges now hold celebration evenings and events during the year. Last week, we had an enormously successful apprenticeships week in England. That was a particular opportunity to celebrate the success of people who have achieved real and valuable vocational qualifications. I am pleased that as a result of actions taken by party political colleagues north of the border, there is nowrather belatedlyto be added investment in the apprenticeship programme there; more young Scottish people will be able to celebrate success in apprenticeships too.

Christopher Fraser: The Secretary of State has answered the question put by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat), but how would he deal with my constituents' problem? They believe that those on jobseeker's allowance should be able to access training courses much more easily than they can under current Government rules.

John Denham: Many FE colleges structure courses to be compliant with the 16-hour rule that normally operates in respect of JSA. In addition, as part of the package of new measures, those providing the courses, totalling more than 70,000 places, to be available to those who have been out of work for six months, will be required to show that they can run them so that a person can start training while continuing their job searchand, when they get into work, carry on with their training. In these times, we need that sort of flexible, personal system that fits in with the benefits rules.

Tom Levitt: In my constituency, 60 new apprenticeships have been announced at Tarmac and the county council has an excellent record of delivering vocational and non-vocation skills in adult and community education over many years. Furthermore, we have the university of Derby at Buxton, a new university blossoming with skills across the board in the further education and higher education sectors. In Derbyshire there is also a big take-up of Train to Gain from employers. Will my right hon. Friend come to High Peak to see how things should be done and how we meet the clearly apparent thirst for skills?

John Denham: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and look at some of the good practice. I have visited the university of Derby, but would like to see many of those other activities.
	Let me reinforce an important point that my hon. Friend made. There are significant investors and companiesmy hon. Friend mentioned Tarmacwho understand the need to invest in skills training now. During the recession of the late '80s and early '90s, many companies thought that the training budget should be the first thing to go. I believe that that attitude has changed. Many companies have to make hard-headed decisions, but there is a much more positive commitment to maintaining such investment. That is why the Government are maintaining investment in skills and rejecting the advice of the Conservative party, which would cut my Department's budget by 610 million.

Mr. Speaker: I call Stephen Williams.

David Willetts: rose

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman's name was Stephen Williams.  [Laughter.] I call Stephen Williams.

Stephen Williams: I am sure that all Government Front Benchers, and perhaps all Conservative Front Benchers as well, were avidly watching the Liberal Democrat conference in Harrogate last weekend. We discussed rebuilding the economy by nurturing all of Britain's talent. We reaffirmed our commitment to ameliorate student debt by removing university tuition fees and also discussed the barriers to adults' acquisition of skills, whether through further education or apprenticeships.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that there are two measures that could be adopted to help adults who need to reskillbecause they have lost their jobs or because of the dynamic 21st-century economy? The first is to remove the ludicrous rule that once someone reaches the age of 25 the state will not fund their first level 3 qualification. The second is to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships; the full, off-the-job training costs of adult apprenticeships should be met.

John Denham: I did spend the entire weekend watching the Liberal Democrat conference in Harrogate. It was rather like watching a festival of yogic flying, because the hon. Gentleman achieved the remarkable position of promising 3 billion of unfunded commitments on university fees while at the same time abandoning a target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education and promising to cut Train to Gain, so denying hundreds of people the chance to study at work. It really was a quite ridiculous package, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not be going around claiming that they are going to cut people's university fees when they have absolutely no way of paying for that without reducing the number of people who can go to university.

David Taylor: In times of recession, when employers are running down their numbers of employees, that is often done on the basis of last in, first out. The last in are sometimes those who have had physical disabilities, who even in times of economic boom have found it very difficult to get into work. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what particular focus there will be on retraining and reskilling for those who have had physical disabilities that have prevented them from getting into the workplace very easily?

John Denham: One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been able to invest significantly more in his Department than was planned even a few months ago is his determination to ensure that the rising number of people who are out of work does not hit the Government's ambitious plans to give greater support to people such as those coming off incapacity benefit, who want to work, and with the right support could work, but might otherwise lose the chance to do so. We are determined as far as is humanly possible to maintain investment in the services that have been developed in recent years to support the very people whom my hon. Friend is talking about and get them into work.

Mr. Speaker: I call David Willetts.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for my over-eagerness earlier in wanting to respond to the Secretary of State's caricature of our policies.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about something that I hope he will agree is very important in ensuring that people have training and skills in the recession, which is the role of further education colleges. What does he say to a college that had moved out of its old buildings having been promised capital for a rebuild, but will now find itself operating out of temporary classrooms because of his Department's incompetence in its management of the capital programme? How does that contribute to investing in skills in a recession?

John Denham: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well from my having made a written ministerial statement last Wednesday as promised, we will spend the 2.3 billion that we have been allocated in this spending review period on capital investment in FE colleges. That is in sharp contrast to the position 10 years ago and comes on top of many hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in recent years. His own constituency has benefited from no fewer than 11 different FE capital projects in recent years. He did not say anything about that, surprisingly.
	The Learning and Skills Council informed me about 10 days ago that it had given approval in principle to another 79 colleges, with more in the pipeline. It is clear that we cannot fund all those in the next two years, which is why we have done two things. We have asked the LSC to consult the Association of Colleges and others on ways to prioritise those that are in the pipeline, to give colleges some certainty. Secondly, the LSC has agreed to my request that it appoint Sir Andrew Foster to provide a report to me on how this situation could have arisen.

David Willetts: Havant college is actually one of the many colleges affected by the moratorium. We calculate, on the basis of the Secretary of State's own statement, that 144 will be affected. He said that he had invited Sir Andrew Foster to explain to him what went wrong. Will he confirm the details in the LSC's minutes, which we have obtained with a freedom of information request, that senior officials from his Department attended every meeting of the LSC when the capital moratorium was discussed, and that it was specifically concluded at the end of the meeting when the moratorium was first imposed that he should immediately be informed? Why is he now saying that he needs a review, given that his Department was kept in touch throughout this unfolding disaster?

John Denham: The position is clear. Ministers were first alerted to a potential problem with the capital programme at the end of NovemberI am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the date. We received the next information just before the December meeting, at which the decision was made not to approve any further colleges in detail. Ministers were not given the picture that I was able to put in the written ministerial statement last week until the week before lastI think, but I will give him the dateas a result of the review that we asked the LSC to conduct. The numbers of colleges that the hon. Gentleman has calculated that were promised approval in detail, and the numbers in the pipelinethat is significant, because not only colleges that have had approval in principle are waiting for funding clearancedid not become available to Ministers with any clarity until that date. We shared the information with the House within the most reasonable timetable possibleafter the LSC met last week to consider which colleges could be approved and the shape of the rest of the programme.

Science and Engineering Apprenticeships (Young Women)

Alison Seabeck: What steps the Government are taking to encourage participation by young women in science and engineering apprenticeships.

David Lammy: We are challenging the apprenticeships gender divide by legislating to ensure that young people get impartial careers information on apprenticeships alongside other options. We are also taking positive action for learners in non-traditional occupations.

Alison Seabeck: Clearly, the Government have introduced several measures to help encourage young women into apprenticeships, but they still generally go into the lower paid end, and a gender pay problem remains. However, will my right hon. Friend join me in commending Plymouth city college on its females into engineering days, which are designed to encourage young women into engineering, and congratulate the three female apprentices whom the Learning and Skills Council has nominated for apprentice of the year?

David Lammy: I congratulate Plymouth city college on all that it is doing in science and engineering and the young apprentices on all that they have achieved. My hon. Friend is right to champion again the same rate of pay for female apprentices as for male apprentices. Some progress has been made in the past few yearswe have narrowed the gap from 26 to 21 per cent., but much more remains to be done. I hope that she agrees that having the appropriate information, advice and guidance in schools for the first time, and legislating for that, means that young women can properly appraise the pay that they will get, depending on the apprenticeship that they take up.

Desmond Swayne: One of the most important ways in which to get young people to take on apprenticeships is to interest them in science and engineering. Will the Government accept my congratulations on their announcement earlier this week that they will implement the Conservative Teach First policy? May I urge them to hold fast to those principles and not to be put off by the agitation of teacher trade unions?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a time to ensure that those with a background in subjects such as mathematics, who have worked in other sectors of the economy, have the opportunity to come into schools and enthuse young people about science, technology, engineering and mathematicsthe STEM subjects. I am sure that he will be pleased about the increases, because of the work and extra money that has been invested, in applications to study those subjects in our universities. We must have that bank of teachers working in those subjects to enthuse our young people.

Derek Twigg: To encourage more women to participate in engineering and science apprenticeships, we need more opportunities, especially in my area, the north-west. Are not investing in places such as the Daresbury laboratory and expanding and developing the Daresbury business park, which will be one of the biggest science parks in the country, ways of doing that? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Government will continue to consider what they can do to help the Daresbury laboratory provide opportunities for jobs and apprenticeships and underline the importance of the Daresbury science park?

David Lammy: We will shortly be publishing the McKillop report on the future at Daresbury, which I am sure my hon. Friend is awaiting.

Adam Afriyie: This week marks international women's day and national science and engineering week. The Government talk a lot about equality and rightly so, but after 11 years of this Labour Government, only 2.6 per cent. of engineering apprentices are women, a figure that is virtually unchanged. It is also sobering to note that 15 per cent. of UK engineering students are women, yet in Chile the figure is 21 per cent. The Minister should not be complacent; he should be embarrassed by our progress. What is Chile doing that we are not doing?

David Lammy: There is certainly no complacency on this issue. That is why it is important to have critical mass pilots and positive actionsomething opposed by the Oppositionto ensure that women have those opportunities. It is also why we are putting money into women-led projects, such as the women in science, engineering and construction initiative, to ensure that young women in schools have the right resources and that we challenge gender stereotypes and make progress in this respect. However, until the hon. Gentlemen's party recommends positive actionakin to the positive action that has given us women on the Labour Back BenchesI do not need a lecture from him on equality.

Apprenticeships

Lindsay Roy: How many people started apprenticeships in each of the last five years.

Si�n Simon: The numbers of people starting an apprenticeship in England in each of the last five years were: 194,000 in 2003-04; 189,000 in 2004-05; 175,000 in 2005-06; 184,000 in 2006-07; and 225,000 last year. We have rescued apprenticeships, increasing the number from 65,000 in 1997 to 225,000 last year. Completion rates are also at a record high, with 64 per cent. of people successfully completing an apprenticeship, up from 37 per cent. only three years ago. We will be investing more than 1 billion over the next year to ensure that we continue to build and invest in skills and training.

Lindsay Roy: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful response. I congratulate the Minister and the Labour Government on giving such a high priority to investment in apprenticeship training and on their success in continuing to increase numbers. Apprenticeship training is potentially a soft target in difficult economic times, but if we are to remain competitive and ready for the upturn, it is vital that we continue to invest in skills. Is the pattern of investment in apprenticeships consistent throughout the UK?

Si�n Simon: May I thank my hon. Friend for that question? He follows in the footsteps of John MacDougall, who was a very special man. In the short time that my hon. Friend has been in the House, he is already filling those boots as a champion of the people of the Glenrothes. In answer to his question about whether the pattern is consistent across the UK, no, I am afraid that it is not. The pattern is one of tremendous investment from this Government1 billion in apprenticeships in Englandbut sadly, under-investment in Scotland, where apprenticeship pay is poor and apprenticeship take-up is pathetic.

John Bercow: May I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman the point that I made on Second Reading of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill on 23 February? At present, the overly prescriptive clause 84 would have the effect of denying the chance to participate in apprenticeships to quite large numbers of children and young people with special educational needsfor example, on the autistic spectrumwho perhaps do not have level 2 or level 3 qualifications, but whose mindset and instinct would be well served by such an apprenticeship. Will he allow himself a degree of flexibility in this matter?

Si�n Simon: It is a feat of the hon. Gentleman's remarkable and well noted memory that he has managed to recall the title of that Bill, on which we spent an hour and a half in Committee just this morning. I understand the point that he makes and he makes it well, with his usual articulacy and passion. We are going through those matters in Committee. There is absolutely no intention that young people with learning difficulties or disabilities should be anything other than supported, developed and included by the Bill, and I am happy to assure him that they will be.

George Howarth: Had the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) asked for statistics over the last 40 years, I would probably have been included in the answer as I was engineering apprentice then. Will he join me in congratulating Councillor Ron Round, the leader of Knowsley council, who has gone out to promote apprenticeships across all sectors in the area? Last year, he succeeded in getting more than 100 apprentices placed into employment across the borough. Would he care to come and look at what has been done in Knowsley and consider rolling it out as a model across the country?

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who over the years has shared a few stories with me of his days as an apprentice[Hon. Members: Tell us.] No, I cannot be tempted to betray those confidences now. I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the leader of Knowsley council. I cannot help noting that it is the Labour leader of a Labour council in Knowsley who is driving up the number of apprentices, not just in the public sector where we aim for 21,000 new apprentices, but right across the board. I am very happy to congratulate the council leader and I would be more than delighted to visit my right hon. Friend's constituency.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) asked about consistency across the country. Will the Minister confirm whether my perception is correctthat there are actually rather fewer places for apprenticeships and certainly a lower uptake of them in rural areas? I suspect that the reason has a lot to do with access problems encountered by individual young people. What is he going to do about that problem?

Si�n Simon: I do not believe that there is much hard data on this, but I can confirm that there is an issue in more rural areas, where there is likely to be fewer large employers and less heavy industry, so perhaps there is less of a tradition of apprenticeships. To tackle that, we are developing and extending group training associations and what we call apprenticeship training associations, which are different types of confederations and sharing systems for apprenticeships, so that the smaller businesses that are more likely to be found in rural areas are able to provide apprenticeships. When the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill is passed and we have a National Apprenticeship Service, one of the first things it will do is go out into the harder-to-reach parts of the country, to spread the word and the practice of apprenticeships.

Jim Devine: I just want to check that I heard what the Minister said a few moments ago correctly. Did he say that while we are charging ahead with increasing apprenticeships in England, the Scottish Nationalist party Government have cut the budget, are paying less money to apprentices and, as I understand it, were going to cut the number of apprenticeships, had it not been for the fact that the Labour group demanded in the last budget that the number be increased? Is that correct?

Si�n Simon: I understand why my hon. Friend puts those questions in that way, as it does sound extraordinary and almost unbelievable, but yes, I believe that it is like that in Scotland. I cannot remember whether apprentices are paid a minimum 30 or 40 a week in Scotland, but in England it is 80 and rising to 95. He is correct that, apparently, the SNP Government have cut the budget and the number of apprenticeships. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is extraordinary and inexplicable, but it is absolutely not the way that this Government will run apprenticeships in England. I am sad to say, however, that with their 610 million of cuts, that is exactly where Conservative Members would take us back to if they got their way.

John Hayes: Contrary to the Minister's rather intemperate suggestions, he knows that the Conservatives support apprenticeships because we know that growing skills spreads opportunity, feeds social mobility and boosts our economy. That is why we will create 100,000 more apprenticeships, as we outlined in our green paper. Those will be genuinely new places, not the result of
	converting government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeships,
	which the House of Lords Select Committee recognised as the principal reason for the growth in the number of apprenticeships that the Minister described. Will he now give the House an absolute assurance that all of the future expansion of public sector apprenticeships that the Government promise will be new training for new staff and not just the result of converting existing training into apprenticeships and existing staff into apprentices?

Si�n Simon: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the investment that we planwhich he plans to cut, but which will rise over the next two yearsof an extra 1 billion in apprenticeships will carry on. The 21,000 new apprenticeships in the public sector, each and every one of them, will be new trainingof course they will.

Student Loan Book

Paul Rowen: What progress has been made in selling the student loan book.

David Lammy: The Government still intend to make sales from the student loan book, but it is clear that that should be done only when we can get a good return for the taxpayer. For the time being, the market conditions do not allow that, but we will actively look to identify opportunities for a sale that represents value for money as market conditions improve.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he therefore admit that Government policy has been an abject failure? In fact, the Government's taking on of other people's bad debts and trying to sell off the student loan book is not a goer, either now or in the future.

David Lammy: I do not accept that, but what I do accept is that we are in a global downturn. Market conditions have changed since the proposal was brought before the House. That is why I made the announcement that I have made today.

Sharon Hodgson: Student loans are an important policy area and, along with grants, bursaries and the education maintenance allowance, have encouraged serious numbers of young people from my constituency to go into further and higher education. Will the Minister reassure me and confirm that that funding will continue?

David Lammy: I am obviously pleased: we predicted that a third of students should be entitled to a full grantindeed, uptake went to 40 per cent.and two thirds of students are entitled to a grant of some sort. That has made a huge difference.
	I know that my hon. Friend will also be pleasedthese issues are hugely relevant in her constituency, and she continues to champion them again and againthat there has been an 8 per cent. rise this year in the number of students from poorer socio-economic backgrounds going into higher education.

Apprenticeships (Sedgefield)

Phil Wilson: What steps he is taking to increase the number of apprenticeship places in Sedgefield constituency.

Si�n Simon: Last year, 590 people started an apprenticeship in the Sedgefield constituencythe highest number for five years. In January, the new online National Apprenticeship Vacancy Matching Service went live, enabling employers to advertise apprenticeship vacancies at no cost and prospective apprentices to search for places across England.
	The new National Apprenticeship Service will be fully functional from 1 April, providing a single point of contact for employers and apprentices. To raise awareness and encourage more employers to take on more apprenticeships, we are running a national advertising campaign fronted by Sir Alan Sugar, no less.

Phil Wilson: I thank the Minister for that reply. We need to applaud the Government for saving the apprenticeships scheme from the previous Administration. In my constituency, the number of apprenticeships has gone up by 80 per cent., but 15 per cent. of adults still do not have any qualifications. Will he tell me what the Government are doing to ensure that that figure continues to decline?

Si�n Simon: I will tell my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his analysis, which means a lot coming from such an assiduous representative of his constituents. He wanted to know the number of apprentices in Sedgefield; the answer is 590. Shall I tell him how many apprentices per UK constituency, on average, were starting apprenticeships in 1997? The answer is 20. Congratulations are due for the fact that there are 590 apprentices in Sedgefield. The biggest single thing we are going to do is increase the investment in apprenticeships to more than 1 billion over the next two years, unlike the Conservative party, which is committed to cutting it.

Student Loan Repayments (Arrears)

David Heathcoat-Amory: How many former students resident outside the UK are in arrears with their student loan repayments.

David Lammy: According to the latest published provisional data for 2007-08, 500 income-contingent loan borrowers living overseas are in arrears.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is there not a developing scandal in that UK-based students are repaying their loans through the tax system and are often having great difficulty doing so, while an increasing number of overseas students are not making their repayments, cannot be contacted or are falling into arrears? Will the Minister confirm that the figure in 2007 was 70 per cent. of such overseas students? Will he tell the House what legal action is being taken by the Student Loans Company or his Department to recover the money?

David Lammy: On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman is a little premature. When the system began in 2006, 7,100 students from the EU were entitled to loans. He will understand that those students do not graduate until this summer, and will be eligible to repay from the spring of 2010. Some students dropped out while on courses, and many of them are on other courses and below the threshold. Many of them are back in their European countries on other courses and below the threshold. That leaves a small number of students, and I can confirm that nine are being chased through the courts.

David Evennett: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) highlighted, the fact that 70 per cent. failed to start repaying student loans that they took out while studying in UK universities is rather disappointing. A spokesman for the Student Loans Company has said that it does not write routinely to addresses provided. That is surprising. I believe that it is a warning of a much bigger problem to come when more EU students graduate. Does the Minister not think that the problem was predictable and avoidable? Will he promise to take action sooner rather than later, because fewer repayments from yesterday's students means less money for tomorrow's students?

David Lammy: The soundbite at the end was okay, but [Interruption.] I just remind the hon. Gentleman that 10,000 UK students are studying in European countries, and many of those UK students are entitled to loans and grants in foreign jurisdictions, so the suggestion that somehow EU students are more dishonest than UK ones is not right. As I have said, the 70 per cent. figure is plain wrong. Most of that 70 per cent. is made up of students who have changed their courses, dropped out of courses, are still in education and are certainly beneath the threshold. Most of those students do not graduate until the summer of this year and, as he would expect, the Student Loans Company is putting in place everything it can to ensure that we chase down those students when they graduate.

University Access

John Grogan: What steps he plans to take to increase the number of people from poorer backgrounds attending university.

John Denham: This Government are committed to ensuring that every young person has a fair chance to attend a university. The proportion of young entrants from lower socio-economic groups going to university has increased steadily, reaching almost 30 per cent. in 2007. The National Council for Educational Excellence set out a series of further measures to widen participation and promote fair access, and we are working with a group of 11 selected research-intensive universities that are committed to reaching out to talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to ensure that they have a chance to demonstrate what they can achieve.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the university of York's bursary scheme, which is based on household income, is more likely to encourage more students from lower-income backgrounds to apply than, say, the university of Sheffield's bursary scheme, which is heavily weighted towards A-level results? Does that not reinforce the case for a national minimum bursary scheme, so that all students, wherever they applied, would know what support to expect?

John Denham: So far the Government have not been convinced that we would be better off with a national bursary scheme, because it would be hard to determine how it differed from the national system of student financial support. Universities enjoy freedom and flexibility in determining their bursary schemes, although the schemes must be agreed with the Office of Fair Access. I have no doubt, however, that the operation of such schemes is one of the issues that will examined when the review of fees and financing is launched later in the year.

Charles Kennedy: Although there is good practice and much is being learned at universities throughout Britain, the Department may be interested in a specific example arising from my involvement with the university of Glasgow. When people were encouraged to provide more scholarships, especially for disadvantaged students, it became clear that many of those who might be considered eligible to donate were put off by the very word scholarship, assuming that it was necessary to be extremely rich to provide a scholarship or endowment. In fact the donations can be quite small, but they can make all the differenceparticularly to a potential student from a disadvantaged background in, say, the city of Glasgow who might otherwise not go to university.

John Denham: That is an interesting point. We are always willing to learn from good practice wherever we can find it. We have encouraged further donations to support such activity with a match funding scheme launched last summer, which provides additional funds from the taxpayer if universities can also raise money from endowments.
	A key issue is that we are currently losing a set of students who do not get near to applying for what they perceive as the most selective and competitive universities, generally the most research-intensive. That is why I am so encouraged by the work being done by the group of 11 universities with which we are working. They are examining ways they can proactively seek out such studentswho may intend to go to university, but not to apply for places at the research-intensive universitiesand encourage them, by means of summer schools or other such activities, to consider studying at such universities. I believe that breaking down the barriers to aspiration is as important as some of the financial inducements in the system.

Virendra Sharma: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more than half of all young people from all social backgrounds aspire to embark on higher education, and that those who reject the target of allowing them to do soincluding Opposition Membersmerely demonstrate that they do not share the dreams of those young people?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we have observed in the Chamber over many weeks and months, those who come up with arguments against the 50 per cent. targetarguments such as We would not want to set a target because you cannot tell people to go to universityare simply disguising the fact that they do not share the ambitions of young people across the country, and have no commitment to the policies that would make a difference. If they ever got their hands on the budget, they would do what the Conservative party has already promised to do and reduce the budget to make it impossible for progress to be made for those young people.

Topical Questions

David Drew: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: This is national science and engineering week, featuring events involving around 1.5 million people. As I am sure the House will know, the website for the Save Our Bees campaign has been overwhelmed by public interest and support.  [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I believe that that demonstrates that science and public support for it are critical to tackling the great challenges of our time, including the environmental challenges.
	In the past 10 years the Government have doubled science spending, which will rise to nearly 6 billion by 2010-11, creating an outstanding research base and a huge national asset. As the Prime Minister said recently,
	we will meet our ten-year commitment to maintain science spending... we will maintain the ringfence we have placed around science funding - protecting money for science from competing demands in the short-term.

David Drew: As one who has just written an article on Save Our Bees, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what we are doing for science; but let me turn to the issue of apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on the scheme allowing those unlucky apprentices who have been unable to complete their apprenticeships because of the recession to be taken on by other companies, but will my right hon. Friend look into the funding of that scheme? It may be necessary to consider some form of wage compensationparticularly in the automotive industrybecause it seems that at present people often undertake the training off their own bat without any direct reward. Surely it is only right and proper for them to receive such a reward to enable them to finish their courses properly.

John Denham: There are a number of important issues in my hon. Friend's question. We have already taken steps to enable those apprentices who may lose their jobs to continue to the end of their technical training, and we are looking at further ways of offering support. We have committed up to 100 million to the skills council that covers the motoring industry for enhanced investment in training, and, as my the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), mentioned, we are working with group training associations, which are of particular relevance to engineering companies in the supply chain, to ensure that they are able to sustain apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary met with the motor industry yesterday to discuss the wider package of measures, such as the potential of 2 billion of support for the industry, including investment from the European Investment Bank. That is obviously also important in maintaining investment in skills and training.

John Pugh: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to study early-day motion 1013, which deplores the university of Liverpool's intention to close down the three departments of philosophy, politics and statistics? A great city such as Liverpool needs philosophy and politics. What can the Minister do to discourage this appalling philistine act?

John Denham: As we often celebrate in this House, we have a world-class higher education system in this country. One of the reasons for that is that I do not run the universities and I do not make such decisions about individual universities. I think that that is a shared view across the House. The truth is that these decisionswhich often give rise to local, and sometimes even national, concernsare decisions that must be taken by the universities themselves in developing their own priorities and sense of mission. I do not believe that our university system would be better off if central Government were to begin to dictate to universities which departments they should or should not close. Occasionally, the funding councils will rightly step in with strategic funding, as they have done in the past to sustain physics departments, but that is different from my stepping in on decisions made by Liverpool or any other university, which will inevitably make changes to their pattern of courses and investment over years to come.

Phil Wilson: Next Tuesday, there will be the official opening of the Printable Electronics Technology Centre in Sedgefield, one of only four facilities of its kind in the world, and it has been forecast that by 2015 that will be an industry worth 16 billion. The centre's innovation has already helped to save 600 jobs at Thorn Lighting in County Durham and is helping to prepare the north-east for the economic upturn. What else are the Government doing to promote science and innovation in our economy, and will my right hon. Friend welcome the opening of PTEC and meet representatives from it to discuss the importance of the technology?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that these are topical questions, so I ask for quick, punchy questions and quick, punchy answers?

John Denham: In addition to the science investment to which I have referred, the Government are investing in the Technology Strategy Board, one of the major investors in the centre in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is by maintaining investment in science and research that we can create the jobs of the future economy that will make us competitive and prosperous. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituency on what they are achieving.

Tony Baldry: What can we all do to help the Secretary of State extract further funding for further education in his discussions with the Chief Secretary? Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear to the House that he had found an extra 2.2 billion from the Treasury, and I am sure that, if we all came together with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, we could, with a charm offensive, persuade the Chief Secretary that skills and training are a very good investment in a recession and that there are very good capital projects in that regard that will create much-needed employment in the construction industry. If so, projects such as those for Oxford and Cherwell Valley college could go ahead, all of which would be extremely good news. We want to help the Secretary of State.

John Denham: All help gratefully received, but the truth is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already enabled me to bring well over 100 million of extra investment in FE colleges forward to this and the next financial year. We have also brought forward more than 100 million of investment in higher education for the coming years, and we have had new investment for apprenticeships and for training and skills for those who may lose their job. The Chief Secretary has been very good at recognising the case we have made for extra investment, but, as I have said, I will never turn down help from any quarter because we are always willing to invest more.

Andrew Slaughter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 64 per cent. rise in the number of young people entering higher education from my constituency in the past 10 yearsthree times the national average? Will he continue to invest in higher education, and will he tell me what the effect on those figures would be if 600 million was cut from the universities and skills budget, as proposed by the Conservative party?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just the one supplementary answer will suffice.

David Lammy: I can tell my hon. Friend that it would be disastrous. He will see that this week we published figures showing what has happened in every constituency across the country, and in the 88 most deprived constituencies, time and again numbers have doubledthey have gone up. That would all be gone if we saw the reduction proposed.

Nicholas Winterton: Following up the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, when the world economic downturn comes to an end, the United Kingdom will face a real challenge to its competitiveness, particularly from the developing countries and the far east. Does he not agree, as my hon. Friend stressed, that colleges such as Macclesfield college in my constituency can play a major role in providing the skilled apprentices and work force that this country will need to survive. What new initiatives is the Secretary of State going to take?

John Denham: Of course colleges are going to be crucial, which is why the investment we have made in new colleges and in the expansion of the training budget will turn out to be one of the best investments this country could possibly have made in making sure that we raise skill levels and have the capacity to train more people for the future. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the best way to support us is to persuade his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), to reject the cuts in the budget for my Department being proposed by his party.

Ben Chapman: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that, especially in a time of economic downturn, investment in human resources in general and in apprenticeships in particular needs to be increased? Will he confirm that the investment in apprenticeships will continue to increase in small and large firms, public and private, and in the wider economy generally, and take account not just of constituency location but of travel-to-work areas? A number of my constituents have to travel outside the constituency to Deeside, Ellesmere Port, Liverpool, Chester and so on to find these most valued apprenticeships.

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend has put the case perfectly himself, and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made it repeatedly this morning. It is exactly as he says: we will continue to investinvestment will rise to 1 billion in the next two yearsand the Conservative party are committed to cut.

Peter Bone: Why is it, then, despite what we have heard, that Tresham institute in my constituency was promised expansion money in December but that was postponed, and was postponed again in March? This Government say that they are bringing forward capital spending; they are actually pushing it back.

John Denham: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written ministerial statement last week that shows we are bringing capital expenditure forward? However, as I made clear in that statement and at this Dispatch Box, Tresham and a number of other colleges have been given approval or encouragement by the Learning and Skills Council way beyond the resources that it has to allocate in this spending review. That is precisely why I asked the LSC to appoint Sir Andrew Foster to provide a report for me, which will of course be published, on how this situation arose. I can understand the views of people involved in the hon. Gentleman's college. The LSC has created this situation, and we will need to resolve it with it, and Sir Andrew will report to us on how the situation arose.

Andrew Love: The benefits to small enterprises of an increasingly skilled work force are well known. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to raise employers' awareness of the Skills for Life programmes, so that they can help to invest in training and increase the productivity of their business?

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This week, we launched a refreshed Skills for Life strategy. Since we came to office, 2.8 million people have got basic skills under that strategy that they did not have before, and which they would not have had under the Opposition.

Andrew Stunell: Does the Minister share my concern at the performance of the Learning and Skills Council in cancelling the proposed redevelopment of Cheadle and Marple sixth-form college and, furthermore, in leaving 900 students without their education maintenance allowances in January of this year? Will he tackle the LSC on both of those topics?

John Denham: They are both issues of legitimate concern. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill currently going through Parliament will abolish the Learning and Skills Council.

Liz Blackman: The student fee assumption, which is the amount that the LSC assumes FE colleges will collect from adult students in training, is rising steadily. Will the Secretary of State undertake to keep that level under review, given falling family and company budgets?

John Denham: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which has been raised by colleges. We always keep such matters under review, but I have two points to add. The performance of colleges in recovering fees varies widely and some are much more effective than others. I would be worried about pursuing a course of action that effectively penalised those colleges that take fee recovery seriously in order to reward those that have not previously focused on it in the way they might have done. We can continue to discuss that issue, but we need to be careful about doing anything that may have untoward consequences.

Robert Wilson: Has the Secretary of State looked at the tremendous success of the United States community college system in attracting students from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education? They are local, flexible institutions that are properly integrated into the US system. Can we learn anything from the US?

John Denham: Although I do not think that the structure of community colleges could be easily imported into our system without enormous disruption and relocation, there are elements of the community college system that we could build into it effectively, particularlyalthough not onlythe ability to progress from vocational qualifications to vocational education at a higher level. In a recent speech to university vice-chancellors, I made it clear that we need to do more of that in the future. From what I have seen of US community colleges, they have strengths in that area.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 MarchSecond Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill.
	Tuesday 17 MarchRemaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Wednesday 18 MarchOpposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on the economy which will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 19 MarchMotion relating to the draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Advertising Requirements) Order 2009, followed by a topical debate, subject to be announced.
	Friday 20 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March will include:
	Monday 23 MarchRemaining stages of the Coroners and Justice Bill (first allocated day).
	Tuesday 24 MarchConclusion of remaining stages of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
	Wednesday 25 MarchOpposition day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 26 MarchA general debate on defence in the UK.
	Friday 27 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 31 March, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will open a debate on the economy.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. First, I have been asked by the noble Lord Myners, the Minister responsible for the City, to state that contrary to what I said last week in this House he receives no pension from NatWest bank and no entitlement from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. I am happy to offer that correction today. Yesterday[Hon. Members: An apology?] I am very happy to call it an apology if that is what the House wishes.
	Yesterday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Prime Minister said that the Government would be
	happy to debate the economy at any time in this House.[ Official Report, 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 292.]
	It has taken some time. The embarrassing truth for the Government is that, during this period of national crisis, there have been just two debates in Government time on the economy since Octoberone after the pre-Budget debate last autumn, which was demanded by the shadow Chancellor and thankfully granted by you, Mr. Speaker, and one, as is customary, after the Queen's Speech. Now, at last, after extensive pressure, the Government have been shamed into holding a debate on Tuesday 31 March. We will none the less proceed with our Opposition day debate on the economy next Wednesday. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will be at both debates?
	May we have a statement from the Government on the purpose of Select Committees? Yesterday, the Liaison Committee published its annual report into the work of Select Committees, which stated that the already over-stretched state of the Committee machinery was being exacerbated by Committees' being too large and by the establishment of too many Committees. Will the Government once again explain why they have just created a further eight new Committees, at least two of which, as we learned from points of order on Tuesday, did not even manage to hold their first meeting as they were supposed to? Does that not speak eloquently of the total uselessness of regional Select Committees?
	May we have an opportunity to debate the issues surrounding protests in a democracy? There is still no indication from the Government about what they plan to do about the vulgar encampment and constant megaphone bellowing in Parliament square, which is a permanent national embarrassment. When can we expect such a debate or statement? Rather more importantly, will the Leader of the House join me and others in condemning the ignorance of those protesters in Luton who did everything they could to spoil what should have been a day dedicated to honouring the British soldiers who have put their lives on their line to do their duty under threat abroad?
	The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is obstructing the publication of details about where money has been spent on the preventing violent extremism pathfinder fund, even though the details were published for last year. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, especially on the spending of money. This appears to be unacceptable behaviour from the Secretary of State and brings her and this place into disrepute. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State the displeasure of the House and seek a full apology from her along with the information to which hon. Members are fully entitled?
	Does the Leader of the House think that she has given enough time for the Welfare Reform Bill on Report, given the ferocity of the amendments that have been tabled to it by her Back Benchers? On Monday, the Department for Work and Pensions was subjected to the attentions of some furious protesters, including an organisation known as Feminist Fightback. Given that the Leader of the House has been pictured before wearing a T-shirt bearing the inscription This is what a feminist looks like, might we assume that she, too, took part in that protest?
	Even though, perhaps surprisingly, that event was not covered by the  Daily Mirror, in the course of this week the Leader of the House has been. May I congratulate her on being the centrefold of that newspaper on Monday? In the past, she has said that she thinks that Prime Ministers' wives ought to buy their clothes at Primark; now, she says that she loves stilettos and that she shops in Primark herself. I am more Savile Row, I have to admit [ Interruption. ] But not stilettos. Might we conclude that this is preparation for her becoming Prime Minister?
	When the right hon. and learned Lady was asked what attracts her to other politicians, she answered:
	I prefer men
	that is a very good start
	with big...brains.
	Could it be that I have found favour with her at last?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I may start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the correction that he has made in respect of Lord Myners. The hon. Gentleman has acted appropriately: he said something, it was pointed out that it was wrong, and he has come to the House at the next opportunity to put it right. I thank him for that, and I think that he has done exactly right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the debate on the economy. Since the credit crunch began to take effect as a result of the global financial crisis, this House has had the benefit of constant accountability on the economy through oral statements, Bills, questions raised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, and topical debates. It is for the Opposition to choose the subject of an Opposition day debate, and for next week's they have chosen the economy. It is for the Government to determine which Minister to put forward.
	The Liaison Committee's report pays tribute to, or at least acknowledges, the Government's concern to provide greater accountability to the House. As for regional Committees, we think that it is important that the massive agencies with big regional reach which are making a huge difference in every region by injecting capital and improving skills, are properly accountable to the House. The spate of what I would call misleading points of order implied that there was something untoward about the first set of regional Committee meetings. That is absolutely wrong: the normal process is that, when members of a Committee are selected [ Interruption. ] It is not the case that they did not turn up. When members of a Committee are selected, it is for the most senior to arrange with the Clerks when the meeting should be held. Most of the meetings have been held this week: some will be held today, and the remaining one or two will be held next week.
	The regional Committees will go ahead with their work of holding regional agencies to account for the hundreds of millions of pounds that they spend, and I suggest to Opposition Members that they join that work. They too should be concerned about the Highways Agency, the Learning and Skills Council and the strategic health authorities, all of whose actions should be scrutinised at regional level as well as on the Floor of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the encampment in Parliament square. There will be Justice questions next week, and I suggest that he raise the matter then, when will hear what the plans are to deal with it.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the point about the shameful demonstrations in Luton, something that I think everyone in the House is concerned about. The local people wanted to welcome the troops back, and I think that we all agree that the counter-demonstrations were deplorable. I think that we all feel struck by the contrast between the freedom of speech that allows people to demonstrate and the conditions in those countries where our soldiers are fighting for democracy, freedom of speech, peace and security, both in the region and in the world.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the accountability of the Department for Communities and Local Government for local spending. Obviously, the Department wants to answer parliamentary questions and be accountable for its spending. There is no attempt not to be open about what we regard a very important programme of ensuring that the police work for greater security. We also work with local communities to ensure that we prevent radicalism and extremism.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for my view on the Welfare Reform Bill. I have always thought that it is a bad thing for a child to be brought up in a house where no one works. That is not just a question of income: it is important for children to see their parents getting up and going out to work every day. That is how children learn that they, too, will be in the world of work when they grow up, not simply expecting to live off benefits. So not only is the work that arose originally from the new deal for lone parentswhich involves more help, more child care and more training for lone parents to get into workgood for their household budgets, but it is good for the children to see that people go out to work, rather than live off benefits.
	The hon. Gentleman made some sideways remarks about me and the rumours of suggested manoeuvrings and all the points made by the shadow Foreign Secretary. When hon. Members stand at the Dispatch Box, it is important that they speak honestly and truthfully and that they do not mislead the House. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue for a number of consecutive weeks, but there is not one shred of truthnot one iota of truthin any of the suggestions that have been circulated in the newspapers. Although we cannot stop the newspapers reporting them, he can at least respect what I tell him about that and not continue to make those accusations from the Dispatch Box. And, yes, I am wearing my stilettos today.

Paul Flynn: To honour the fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq and to remind us of the true costs of war, when can we debate early-day motion 846, as well as early-day motions 847 to 853 and 924 to 933?
	 [That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces serving in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Jake Alderton of 36 Engineer Regiment, Major Alexis Roberts, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 32 from Kent, Colour Sergeant Phillip Newman, 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 36, Private Brian Tunnicliffe, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters), aged 33 from Ilkeston, Corporal Ivano Violino from 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 29 from Salford, Sergeant Craig Brelsford, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 25 from Nottingham, Private Johan Botha, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment from South Africa, Private Damian Wright, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 23 from Mansfield, Private Ben Ford, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 18 from Chesterfield, Senior Aircraftman Christopher Bridge from C flight, 51 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, aged 20, from Sheffield, Private Aaron James McClure, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19 from Ipswich, Private Robert Graham Foster, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19 from Harlow, Private John Thrumble, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 21 from Chelmsford, Captain David Hicks of 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 26 from Surrey, Private Tony Rawson of 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 27 from Dagenham, Essex, Lance Corporal Michael Jones, Royal Marines aged 26 from Newbald, Yorkshire, Sergeant Barry Keen of 14 Signal Regiment, aged 34 from Gateshead and Guardsman David Atherton from the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 25 from Manchester.]

Harriet Harman: We debated Afghanistan earlier this year, and our thoughts are always on future progress in Iraq. As my hon. Friend has brought to my attention his early-day motion, I will look at it and write to him.

David Heath: May I lend weight to the points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) about the protesters in Luton? I have been very strongly against many of the Government's military expeditions, but that is not the way to make a protest; it was inappropriate.
	I am glad that the Leader of the House mentioned that one of the functions of the regional Select Committees is to monitor the work of the Department for Transport. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will be quaking in his boots at the thought that the Labour party quasi-Committee for the south-west will be chaired by his own Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is true parliamentary scrutiny.
	I am pleased to say that the Coroners and Justice Bill will be given two days' consideration on Report23 and 24 Marchbut is the Leader of the House aware of the fact that the Committee only finished its work on Tuesday this week, after one extra sitting and three late sittings? The very bare minimum statutory time will have elapsed between the finish of the Committee and debate on Report. The Government have given a large number of commitments to table amendments to that complex Bill. I simply do not believe that they will be ready for the debate on Report. Will she look at that again?
	Can we have a debate on the efficacy of face-to-face passport interviews in which our constituents have to engage, at great personal expense very often and at great personal inconvenience? The figures until July 2008 were that 216,000 of those interviews had taken place at a cost of 115 million. Of those 216,000, not a single person was rejected. Are we entitled to ask whether that is worth that money and inconvenience to our constituents?
	I do not know whether the Leader of the House noticed the comments made by Sir Tim Berners-Leewho, of course, is the inventor of the world wide webat a meeting in the House yesterday with my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, at which he drew attention to the dangers of so-called behavioural targeting technology, which is the way that people's personal attributes are taken from their activities on the web and used for advertising purposes. He said:
	We must not snoop on the internet. What is at stake is the integrity of the internet as a communications medium.
	Do we not need to take that issue seriously if we are to maintain the privacy of the individual?
	Lastly, I have asked for debates on satnavs before, and for debates on local authority spending. Could we bring the two together, and have a debate on council priorities in Leicestershire? I notice that Conservative-controlled Leicestershire county council is fitting satnavs to 14 lawnmowers because it claims that there has been an
	unprecedented amount of growth,
	and that gardeners
	kept getting lost in long grass
	 [Laughter.]
	It would be funny if people were not losing their jobs, and if there were not people who needed the help of council services. I wonder whether the story puts a whole new complexion on the term county council cuts.

Harriet Harman: Instead of just complaining about the south-west regional Committee, the hon. Gentleman should be encouraging colleagues from his party who represent seats in the south-west to play their part in holding important regional agencies to account.
	I thought that when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Coroners and Justice Bill he would say how much he welcomed the fact that, unusually, we have given two days for the remaining stages, so that there can be detailed consideration of all the issues that need to taken forward, even after Committee. Obviously, all the amendments will be ready for debate and discussion, and as much notice as possible will be given.
	The Home Office keeps issues such as face-to-face passport interviews under review. We need to strike the right balance between the ability to use the internet for administrative convenience and for the convenience of those who are applying, and making sure that there is human, face-to-face activity, so that we can ensure that the system is on track. No doubt the Home Office keeps the matter under review. As far as the behavioural targeting technologies are concerned, we all agree that the advance of the internet and digital technology will be very important for our economy in future, particularly post-recession. The digital contribution to the economy will be ever more important. That is very much a priority for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but obviously we have to make sure that such advances are properly regulated.
	I imagine that the hon. Gentleman read about the satnavs on lawnmowers in the newspapers

David Heath: It is genuine.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he will have to raise the matter with Tory colleagues on Leicestershire county council [Interruption]yes, having grassed them up.

Siobhain McDonagh: Nikita is 17 years old and profoundly deaf. She moved to my constituency in September with her Gurkha family. Despite having been allocated a Connexions adviser and a social worker, and having had assessments and meetings, she still does not have the one thing that she wants: a college place. May we find the time for a debate on how effective the Connexions service actually is, and how it interfaces with social services departments?

Harriet Harman: I suggest that my hon. Friend considers seeking a meeting with the relevant Minister about her constituent, whom she is backing so actively. She may also consider making the general issue the subject of a Westminster Hall debate.

Patrick Cormack: Could I ask the Leader of the House and the self-proclaimed president of the court of public opinion whether when the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses the House on 31 March he will talk about the old Labour solution to excessive pensions, and say that in the Budget he will introduce a 98 per cent. tax on anything above 300,000 ?

Harriet Harman: I have told the House that the Budget will be on 22 April and that there will be a full day's debate on the Floor of the House on the economy, led by the Chancellor. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can make his suggestion then.

Michael Clapham: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 1020, which is in my name?
	 [ That this House is alarmed and concerned to learn from the Information Commissioner's report that the blacklisting of trade union members is widespread in the construction industry; condemns the major construction contractors who subscribed to the Consulting Association and also provided it with information about workers and employees; notes that many of the companies who donated to the Consulting Association are currently engaged on publicly-procured work projects worth billions of pounds; considers that there may be legal implications where for example an employee or worker believes they were dismissed because they were on the list and requests that the Information Commissioner gives a reasonable time for people to make the appropriate checks; and calls on the Government to enact immediately legislation to prohibit the compilation of a blacklist containing the details of workers and employees with a view to them being used by employers or employment agencies to discriminate in relation to employment and to make it a criminal offence for an employer to commission such information. ]
	The early-day motion expresses concern about the fact that the Information Commissioner's report showed that there was blacklisting in the construction industry. We thought that the practice had come to an end some time ago. My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 made provision for
	regulations prohibiting the compilation of lists,
	and made it a criminal offence for construction or other companies to make such information available. Will she raise with Justice Ministers the need to bring forward regulations under section 3, and will she consider whether the Information Commissioner should give people whose names are likely to be on such a list more time to check whether that is so, because of the legal implications? Any person who thinks that they have lost their job as a result of discrimination because their name was on such a list will have a claim for unfair dismissal, so the Information Commissioner should give much more time for people to check the list. Does she also agree

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Hon. Members: He's just had one!

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has indeed held an Adjournment debate on this important issue, and I congratulate the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and  The Guardian, whose work led to an investigation. I thank the Information Commissioner for the work that he has done, which has effectively stopped the company concerned from operating in the way that it did. No trade union health and safety representative should find that, as a result of speaking up on behalf of their colleagues, they are on a blacklist and are never able to work again. The Government are totally opposed to that, and want to make sure that there is most effective enforcement when that happens. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduced extra, tougher penalties for those who misuse information in such a way. The trade unionUCATTthe Information Commissioner and the Government have to work together to make sure that people have the right to work, and that such scurrilous activity is ended. I thank my hon. Friend for the role that he has played in the matter.

Richard Younger-Ross: Considering that there has to be a cap on the travel expenditure of Select Committees of this House, but that for at least three of those Committees travel is essential to the proper evaluation of Government policy, could we have a debate on the Liaison Committee's decision to make a 30 per cent. cut across the board on all future travel this year?

Harriet Harman: It is for the Liaison Committee to make those proposals; I am not sure that it is a matter for the Government. I will consider the issue and write to the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it is important that Select Committees travel in the way that they need to, but that they keep a close eye on the amount of money being spent.

Martin Salter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in praising the work of the UK Youth Parliament in providing young people with the opportunity to learn about, and engage in, the political process? Does she share my disappointment that a handful of Tory backwoodsmen have shamefully blocked the motion that would allow the UK Youth Parliament and its young people to have their annual debate on the Floor of this House? When will the House have an opportunity to resolve the matter, to defeat Cameron's cavemen, and to open the doors of this place to the next generation of citizens?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the traditions of this House. A right hon. Member has been referred to by his surname, and that is not acceptable.

Nicholas Winterton: Apologise! Withdraw!

Martin Salter: rose

Mr. Speaker: It is all right; it is withdrawn.  [Interruption.] It is, yes.

Harriet Harman: The motion about the UK Youth Parliament is on the Order Paper for debate today. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter): we want to encourage young people to see democracy as important, and to see the House of Commons as relevant to their lives and the future. It is perverse for us not to let young people use the Chamber when we are not using it, at a weekend or when the House is in recess. It is perverse for us to say that the doors should remain closed and locked, and that those young people should remain outside them.

Peter Lilley: May we have a debate about the dramatically revised estimates by the Government of the costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act 2008, which were sneaked out this week, even though the changes are greater than the cost of bailing out several failed banks? The Leader of the House will remember that the Government were forced to revise their original figures, when I pointed out that they showed that the potential costs were twice the maximum benefitsthe first time that the Government have ever urged us to do something which, on their own figures, would make matters worse. As so often on climate change, where the facts are out of line with the theory, they change the facts, and after five months of revision, the figures have emerged from the massage parlour with the costs doubled to 400 billion, but to ensure that this time the benefits are in excess, the Government have increased their estimate of the benefits by a factor of 10, from 100 billion to 1 trillion. May we have a debate about such a flaky figure, which only promotes scepticism about the whole issue of climate change?

Harriet Harman: On the detailed figures, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman writes to my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. As for generating scepticism about the climate change agenda, that is the opposite of what we are determined to do. We are determined to make sure that we have a much greener economy for the future, that we use green technology, and that we help people insulate their homes, reduce their fuel bills and save money. We are taking action to tackle climate change across a range of Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the estimates, I suggest that he writes to the Secretary of State.

Joan Ryan: My right hon. and learned Friend will know of the worsening situation in Sri Lanka and the fact that thousands are losing their lives. We have referred to that in the Chamber as a crisis and a catastrophe, and we are running out of words with which to describe the situation. This week, the International Crisis Group described what is happening to the Tamil community as annihilation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and give us an urgent statement on the situation?

Harriet Harman: Earlier this year, we had a debate in the Chamber about Sri Lanka. My right hon. Friend is rightthe situation remains very grave, and we remain concerned about it. Foreign Office Ministers raised it at the Commonwealth meeting, and we continue to work with the international community to press for a democratic resolution to the problem in Sri Lanka.

Paul Goodman: I return to the preventing violent extremism pathfinder fund, which I raised yesterday on a point of order and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) raised today from the Front Bench. I have in my hands details of where every single penny from the fund went last year, which were placed in the Library. The Department for Communities and Local Government is refusing to place in the Library the equivalent details for this year. It must follow either, as was suggested to me yesterday by the Secretary of State's private office, that the Department no longer holds details of the fund, in which case there is no guarantee that money is not falling into the hands of extremists and violent extremists, or that it is refusing to put the information in the Library, which is a discourtesy to Members in all parts of the House and involves withholding information that the public have a right to know. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to get the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement from the Dispatch Box about the matter, which is of exceptional seriousness?

Harriet Harman: There is no intention to withhold any information about public money being spent. We are proud of the Prevent programme, which is designed to combat extremism. I suggest that I write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and ask her to meet the hon. Gentleman in order to resolve the issue amicably. I look to hon. Members to support the idea that Government take a role and take responsibility

Paul Goodman: Where is the money going?

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman asks for a reply from the Leader of the House, he should calm down and listen. It may not be to his liking, but he must calm down.

Harriet Harman: It is right that the Government should put into the hands of local authorities funds so that they can work with community groups in their area to help divert young people from extremism and to support community organisations that are trying to tackle extremism. I deplore the idea of some sort of hue and cry to smear this important programme. If the Opposition want information, the Secretary of State will give them the relevant information and ask for their support for the programme in their areas.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going through a major crisis in the media. The BBC may end up with a monopoly. Surely we believe in true competition. What will we do to ensure that ITV survives? I cannot understand why we had an announcement that product placement would not go ahead. That would have provided the much-needed funding to ensure that ITV will be there to compete against the BBC. Also, local and regional newspapers and local radio are in dire straits. What can we do to ensure that they survive? May we have a topical debate on the subject? Also, I am still waiting for a debate on the future of pensioner travel on trains and young people's bus passes.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right. I am still looking for an opportunity to debate a range of issues affecting older people, of which concessionary travel is one. On the BBC, ITV and regional media, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are working through their Digital Britain programme. Because a number of hon. Members have raised the question, in particular about regional news coverage, we might look for a topical debate on that.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 1044, which records the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members about the decision of Guardian Media Group to cut its local press in the north-west?
	 [That this House notes with regret and concern the decision by the Guardian Media Group to announce further job losses at the Manchester Evening News and within its weekly newspaper group; believes that the proposed cuts in editorial, advertising, distribution and information technology can only be damaging to the future prospects of the titles concerned; recognises that many people have worked extremely hard over the years to build these newspapers up; further believes that local newspapers have an absolutely central role at the heart of local communities; recognises an unwelcome trend to centralise their services and people; deplores the move to close down all of the individual weekly newspaper offices which currently serve the Greater Manchester conurbation; understands that this could be the first time in its proud history that the Manchester Evening News implements compulsory redundancies; upholds strongly the values of quality, independent journalism relevant to local communities; further believes that the founding fathers of the Guardian, particularly CP Scott, would be appalled and saddened by these developments; and calls on Guardian Media Group to rethink its proposals.]
	The motion is supported by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), with the  Stockport Express a particular victim of the cuts. That newspaper will in future be produced not in Stockport, but in Manchester, and the journalist posts are to be halved. That is characteristic of the crisis in the local and regional media, which the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) raised a moment ago. Can the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss early-day motion 1044 and the serious matters with which it deals? Will she take particular note that Guardian Media Group has instructed journalists on those papers not to publish reports of the redundancies in their own newspapers?

Harriet Harman: Regional newspapers are very important indeed. Local and regional newspapers are trusted to provide useful information for people locallyyes, including the  South London Press. Like Guardian Media Group, they have been hit by a change in the way in which people get information, with more people getting information over the internet, and by a fall in business advertising. The matter has been raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). It is important that the local and regional media do not jump the gun, diminish their capacity, and close down important newspaper titles which are well respected and very important in local areas. If they have immediate cash-flow problems, they know that they can go to HMRC and defer their taxes. The Government can provide other help. We do not want them to make short-term decisions that result in the long-term loss of important local news media.

Anne Moffat: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs is meeting this weekend for its annual conference? That is timely, because of the tax on beer that is affecting our pubs, clubs and communities throughout the country. May we have a debate on the matter?

Harriet Harman: The closure of pubs and fewer people going to clubs is a cause for concern. It is happening not only in this country, but around Europe, where similar patterns can be seen. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks for an opportunity to debate the matter on the Adjournment.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). There is a crisis in local radio and local newspapers. Last week, inadvertently, I associated Silk FM with Guardian Media Group, which was inaccurate. I had been ill-informed, and I have apologised to Guardian Media Group. This week, Guardian Media Group announced the closure of all its local newspaper offices in Wilmslow, Accrington, Salford and Macclesfield, making a very large number of journalists redundant and taking local news away from an area where that newspaper has been printed for 198 years. That shows the seriousness of the issue. May we have a debate in this place not only so the Government can say from the Dispatch Box what they might doas the right hon. and learned Lady hasbut so we can have the opportunity to express our concern about local newspapers and local radio?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has added to the important points that have been made, and I will consider where we might find an opportunity for a debate.

Patrick Cormack: A topical debate?

Harriet Harman: Possibly a topical debate.

Derek Twigg: In 2007, I had the privilege of going to Afghanistan during the Royal Anglian Regiment's operational tour. I was also at Pirbright barracks when one of its companies returned from tour. It is truly a great regiment, which has shown outstanding bravery and professionalism over the years. So I was appalled at the demonstration in Luton this week; we will not, of course, see those same demonstrators protesting about the many thousands of Muslims who have been killed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Do not such demonstrations only give succour to the racists and bigots out there who are anti-Muslim?

Harriet Harman: I very much associate myself with the points that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House agrees with those points and the way in which he made them.

Andrew Tyrie: Nearly two years ago, as part of the campaign for the deputy leadership of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Lady said that we need to be
	absolutely certain we don't have a situation where we are complicit in torture.
	Since then, there has been a raft of further allegations, some of them later substantiated in ministerial statements. Given that the Leader of the Opposition and Lord Carlile, the Government's watchdog on terrorism, have both called for a judicial inquiry into further allegations of British complicity, may we at least have a debate on why the Government continue to refuse to set that inquiry up?

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister made it clear that the Government will have nothing to do with torture. We would never use it and never condone it; if any allegations are made, we want to see them investigated. Torture is a criminal activity, and anybody who engages in it needs to be brought to justice. Our position on that is absolutely clear, and, following through on that position, we need to make sure that any individual allegations are properly investigated. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the Attorney-General is looking at whether the matter needs to be referred to the police so that they can investigate the allegations made by Binyam Mohamed.
	We also need to make sure that the intelligence and security services are properly accountable for their methods and how they operate generally. We all agree on that, which we regard, first and foremost, as the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has looked into the matter. I do not think that there is any point in the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) or anybody else trying to make a point of in-principle difference on this issuewe all deplore the use of torture. None of us condones it or would have anything to do with covering it up.
	We need to have a sensible discussion about how we investigate the allegations and make sure that the security services are properly accountable. There is something about the tone of the question that I do not likeit somehow implies that we are less against torture than the Conservatives. That is reprehensible, and we should not have to put up with it.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Leader of the House has announced the return to this place of the Coroners and Justice Bill on next Monday and Tuesday week. I remind her that in this Chamber the Secretary of State for Justice was confused about the ramifications of that legislation for Northern Ireland. I was right and he was wrong; he had to write to me saying that the Bill covers Northern Ireland. I drew attention to the Bill's implications for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a statutory body that opposes it.
	May we have clarification before next Monday week on whether the Government themselves will amend the legislation to exclude Northern Ireland, to take cognisance of the legacy issues, or will the issue be bounced on us? Is this not a case of the architecture of a Bill being flawed and of the Government's having to say so early on and having to recognise the representations that have been made?

Harriet Harman: If my hon. Friend is raising further points that he has not yet raised with the Secretary of State for Justice, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to my hon. Friend's points. If there are any substantive points that would be not only of concern to my hon. Friend but of interest to Members more widely as we head into the debate on the remaining stages, I will ask my right hon. Friend to place a copy of his response in the House of Commons Library.

George Young: Further to the reply that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) about Select Committees, has not the time come to review the role of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs? It has not met since the summer recess last year, and that implies that it does not have an active agenda. Should it not be quietly buried and its residual responsibilities transferred to the Procedure Committee?

Harriet Harman: The Procedure Committee is doing important work; the Deputy Leader of the House gave evidence to it yesterday, so it is clearly forging a way forward. There is no point in Committees meeting for the sake of it if their work is being carried through. The Modernisation Committee carried out an inquiry on regional Committees; that has now been brought to the House and is going forward. The Procedure Committee is looking at further matters. None of us wants Committees to meet for the sake of it, but all of us want to see the House being modernised. One modernisation issue that should be right at the top of our agenda is allowing the UK Youth Parliament to meet in this place.

Fiona Mactaggart: Although I absolutely applaud the tone of my right hon. and learned Friend's response to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), there is an issue that the House should consider. Will she make available an early opportunity to debate the recently published Intelligence and Security Committee report, which fails to deal in any way with the concerns raised about UK security officers' actions leading to torture?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has a long record of concern about these issues. We all want to make sure that there is full accountability and proper openness on those concerns so that we know that things are being done as we and everyone in this country would expect them to be done. I will ask the Home Secretary to write to my hon. Friend on the matter.

Nadine Dorries: The atrocities that took place in Luton this week should not simply end with expressions of disappointment in the House. A small group of Muslim extremists held placards with phrases such as Child murderers and Murderers from Basra on them. The point is that the group, which intended deliberately to incite public disorder, was allowed to form and was not removed from the scene. It was therefore successful.
	More homecoming parades are planned in areas such as Watford and Bolton. Should we not have a debate in the House to discuss the protocol for handling those parades? The Royal Anglians live and train in my constituency. They deserved a good homecoming, but it was spoiled by behaviour that, had the police taken action, could have been prevented and stopped. We urgently need a debate on the issue.

Harriet Harman: Ensuring public order is an operational matter for the police, who I am sure will be looking at their operational activity in respect of the important homecoming parades. I can say no better than what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said: even those who did not agree with the war, including those who marched in protest at the outset of the war, agree that nobody should take part in such demonstrations and that that is not the right way to treat our armed forces.

David Clelland: Will the debate on 31 March give Members the opportunity to influence the content of next month's Budget? In that way, the Chancellor might be advised that as important as supporting the banks are the issues of more support for carers and pensioners, the extension of concessionary travel to students in further education and training, improvements to our transport infrastructure, reductions in class sizes and improvements in compensation for redundant workers.

Harriet Harman: Those are important points for my hon. Friend to draw to the Chancellor's attention. We need to help people now and stabilise the economy, and all the things that my hon. Friend mentioned, such as investment in education and in our transport infrastructure, are important for the future. We have an agenda of care and concern for those in retirement and carers. We have to make sure that there is real help for the future, as well as practical help now.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on the car manufacturing sector? In January, to much fanfare, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform launched a so-called auto manufacturing rescue package. Since then, hundreds of auto manufacturing jobs have been lost, including 150 at GKN in my constituency. Ogihara, Denso and Shimizu in my constituency are also suffering. When are we going to see the end of talk, talk, talk about saving jobs and actually see some action to save them?

Harriet Harman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has just reminded me, the 2.3 billion fund to help the automotive sector is available as from yesterday. That will be important, and we are working to ensure that those who need loans to buy cars can get that finance. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking every action that we possibly can to ensure that we assist the automotive industry with new technology for the new generation of greener cars. We must not simply cut back on public investment. There has been action to stabilise the banks, quantitative easing, a VAT cut and extra money going into people's pockets through tax cuts. All those things, which he opposed, help the economy. Ultimately that, as well as specific programmes, will help the car industry.

Andrew Miller: Next Thursday's business comes about as a result of a difference of opinion on a matter of detail between the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform and the Government. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look closely at when that debate will take place and reflect on whether we need to refine the Standing Orders governing Select Committees to enable time to be built in to avoid such matters of detail coming to the House instead of the matters of substance that really ought to take up our time?

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend has made an important contribution to trying to get that matter sorted out, and hopefully there will be further discussions between him and the relevant Ministers before Thursday so that we will not be distracted by any important but minor points of detail and can instead get on to the main substance.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House rather skilfully avoided answering a specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), may I try again? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer respond to the Opposition's Supply day debate next week on the economy? While we are about it, following what the Prime Minister said during Question Time yesterday, can we assume that the Prime Minister will be winding up the debate on the economy on 31 March that the Chancellor will open?

Harriet Harman: I have announced to the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will open the debate on Tuesday 31 March, which will be a full day's debate on the Floor of the House. The Opposition have chosen the economy as the subject of their Opposition day debate, and in due course and in the normal way the Government will decide which Minister will open it.

Keith Vaz: On 9 March the Home Secretary confirmed that the youngest person on the DNA database was a baby under the age of 12 months and the oldest a man of 90. When will the Government make a statement about the ruling by the European Court that the 1 million people who are on the DNA database but have not committed any crime should not remain on it indefinitely?

Harriet Harman: We accept the Court's ruling in respect of the DNA database, and we will consider how to implement and comply with it. I say to my right hon. Friend and all Membersparticularly the Opposition, who seem to have an in-principle objection to the DNA databasethat we need every tool available for the police to investigate crime and bring offenders to justice. The scientific advances on DNA have enabled murderers and rapists to be held to account for their crimes. I believe that we should thank everybody who is involved in the DNA database and support it. It is a solution to problems, not a problem in itself. Of course we need it to be properly regulated, but I do not hold truck with any of the scaremongering about it. It is a thoroughly good thing.

Douglas Hogg: May we have a debate next week on the merger of Lloyds TSB and Halifax Bank of Scotland? Will the Prime Minister please speak in that debate, so that he can explain his own contribution to the destruction of a solvent bank and billions of pounds of debt being loaded on the taxpayer? Might I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that holding the Prime Minister to account might further her own ill-concealed and patently ridiculous ambitions?

Harriet Harman: I regard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about myself as totally objectionable, and therefore I am not going to answer his question.

David Drew: Last week, I raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the situation in the Sudan. We now know that what was initially a removal by a small number of non-governmental organisations is now a virtually wholesale removal of all NGOs from the country. That will lead to a humanitarian disaster. It would be right and proper for the House to discuss that in advance, so that we can see what we could do as a country. Millions of people's lives are now being put at risk, so is it not right that the House has the opportunity to discuss that, to see how we may help?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The International Criminal Court is independent, and there is no way that the Government of Sudan should be taking it out on aid agencies at the expense of people who desperately need support. I can tell him that before the House rises for the Easter recess, we will have a full day's debate about Africa on the Floor of the House, when there will be an opportunity to debate in detail the question of Darfur, and indeed that of Zimbabwe.

Christopher Fraser: I have raised the issue of access to prostate cancer treatment many times in the House. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this is prostate cancer awareness month. Men living with prostate cancer report the worst NHS treatment of all common cancers. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in the Chamber on that very important subject?

Harriet Harman: We do need to step up work on screening, early identification and treatment, and we have been doing so. The many billions of pounds extra that has gone into the NHS will play an important role in that.

Ian Cawsey: May we have a debate on the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau? The problem is not just the long delays in dealing with constituents' mail. My right hon. and learned Friend might not have heard the recent File on 4 programme, which revealed that up to 2,500 teachers who have had allegations made against them and been totally cleared still have the details on their CRB file. People in certain occupations are open to vexatious complaints, and when they are totally cleared, surely that stain should be removed from their file.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps my hon. Friend could seek a Westminster Hall debate on that. It is important that the records are in place so that those who are working with children can be properly checked out, but it is important also that the information is correct and that people's lives are not blighted. Perhaps other hon. Members might wish to join my hon. Friend in a Westminster Hall debate.

Oliver Letwin: Following the earlier comments about the publication of information by the Department for Communities and Local Government, will the Leader of the House give us a debate on the implementation of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007? When it was a Bill, the Minister responsible promised me in Committee that there would be a full and detailed breakdown of expenditure by central Government and their agencies in the localities. That has not been published. Instead, information already in the public domain has been published. May we debate that statement?

Harriet Harman: I have suggested that it might be a good idea for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to meet Members, and I will put the right hon. Gentleman's name on the list of those seeking a meeting.

Sharon Hodgson: I feel strongly that I wish to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) in calling for a debate on the motion to allow the UK Youth Parliament to use this Chamber for one day to hold its annual meeting. That motion appears on the Order Paper every day and is shamefully opposed by some of the backward-looking Opposition Members who bear no relation to the face of the modern Conservative party that their leader would like to portray to the world. What message about the sort of democracy that we have is sent to our young elected representatives who are members of the UK Parliament if we are so precious about this place that we will not even let them meet here for one day?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is rightthe so-called modern Conservative party wants to keep the House in the 19th century. I know that she is an assiduous Member of Parliament for her constituents in the north, but if she sticks around, she might have an opportunity to vote on the matter later this afternoon.

John Bercow: I endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson).
	In the light of the statement that the right hon. and learned Lady made on Thursday 5 March at column 1007 of the  Official Report that the equality Bill will be introduced in a few months, may we please have a statement on the timetable for its publication and progress? As an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, may I say that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) greeted the potential delay that that statement implied with joy and exultation, to me the possibility of having to wait till June, July or beyond represents a cruel and degrading punishment, potentially beyond endurance?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. A few hon. Members are left who wish to ask a question, and I should have stopped at half-past the hour. The Deputy Speaker can take the questions, but I ask that they be brief. That is only fair.

Harriet Harman: There is no delay in the equality Bill; we will introduce it as I said.

Dari Taylor: The national service framework for coronary heart disease finishes this year. It has achieved much, but cardio-vascular disease remains one of the biggest killers in Britain. Is not it time to discuss national service frameworks and make a policy in the House to ensure that they remain part of the delivery of the national health service?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend's points, which I will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health, who shares her views on and commitment to the matter.

Peter Bone: To revert to the Youth Parliament and the use of the Chamber, what would the Leader of the House say to an organisation that uses all the parliamentary tricks to try to force the business through at the end of business every day without proper debate? What does not having a proper debate on the motion say to our young parliamentarians?

Harriet Harman: What does it say to our young future parliamentarians when Members call for a vote simply as a device to delay matters and do not even go through the Lobby? The Prime Minister included the matter in The Governance of Britain. He has asked the Chamber to consider allowing the Youth Parliament to sit here, and I think that we should just get over it and agree the matter.

Jim Sheridan: The Government's initiative to assist the car manufacturing industry is welcome, but may we have a debate on the car retail sector? The Treasury's recent decision to deny car dealers the ability to claim rebates for the tax revenue on tax discsa practice that has existed for approximately 30 yearscould have a serious impact on the car retail industry, with the potential loss of thousands of jobs. If we do not have a vehicle for selling cars, it could have an impact on car manufacturing.

Harriet Harman: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a point that is important not only for his constituency and Scotland, but throughout the UK. I will raise the matter with the Chancellor, and my hon. Friend might also be able to raise it in the debate on 31 March.

Robert Wilson: It is now 30 years since our country elected its first woman Prime Minister. Will the Minister for Women and Equality make a statement to assure the House that she is doing all she can to bring about the advent of a second woman Prime Minister?

Harriet Harman: That is another question that is not worthy of an answer.

Kerry McCarthy: As someone who spent nearly the first 40 years of my life in Luton and knows the Muslim community well, I think that I can say with some authority that the actions of those who took part in the protests the other day are not representative of the wider Muslim community there. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that in mind when she considers whether it is worth stoking up matters by holding a debate.
	Next Wednesday marks the 10th anniversary of our pledge to abolish child poverty. May we have a topical debate on the subject?

Harriet Harman: Abolishing child poverty can be raised in the full-day debate on the economy on 31 March. I think that the House will want to associate itself with my hon. Friend's remarks about homecoming parades. We do not need to hold a debate about the matter, because everybody agrees about it.

David Taylor: May I tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who queried the decision of my county council, Leicestershire, to put satnav on roadside mowers, that its activities often verge on the ridiculous?
	May I add my support to the comments of the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) about prostate cancer? It is prostate cancer awareness month and the Prostate Cancer Charity has launched the Prostate cancerit matters! campaign, which draws attention to the fact that 100 men a day are diagnosed with prostate cancer and that one man an hour dies of it. Of all the common cancers, it is the worst in terms of patient experience of the NHS. We urgently need a better, new generation test to differentiate between aggressive cancers and more slow-growing ones. May we have a debate on the matter, which is important for many people in every constituency throughout the nation?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I think that it possibly should be the subject of a debate in Westminster Hall.
	On satnav on lawn mowers, as a former Back Bencher of the year, my hon. Friend has often mown down his parliamentary opponents.

Lord Laming's Progress Report

Edward Balls: In November last year, I commissioned an urgent inspection of children's services in Haringey following the failure of agencies in that borough to intervene decisively to protect a little boy.
	Following the joint inspectors' report, I took the immediate actions that I judged necessary to ensure the protection of vulnerable children in that borough. I also asked Lord Laming to provide us with an independent progress report on child protection across the country.
	Lord Laming has today published his report. I have laid a copy of it before the House, with my reply to him, which sets out the Government's immediate response. I can confirm that: we will accept all Lord Laming's recommendations in full; we are taking immediate action from today to implement them; and we will set out our detailed response to all 58 recommendations before the end of next month.
	I am sure that I speak for the House when I say that we are hugely grateful to Lord Laming and all the experts, practitioners and members of the public who have contributed to his thorough investigation.
	As Lord Laming says at the start of his report, being safe is,
	the very minimum upon which every child should be able to depend.
	His report finds that the Every Child Matters reforms, which were introduced after the Victoria Climbi inquiry, provide
	a sound framework for professionals to protect children and promote their welfare.
	However, he is also clear that
	There now needs to be a step change in the arrangements to protect children from harm.
	He further states:
	The new ContactPoint system will have particular advantages in reducing the possibility of children for whom there are concerns going unnoticed.
	However, he challenges us to do more
	to ensure that leaders of local services accept their responsibility to translate policy, legislation and guidance into day to day practice on the frontline of every service.
	The report makes a series of detailed recommendations to ensure that best practice is universally applied in every area of the country, to improve local accountability and to provide more support for local leaders and for the front-line work force. None of Lord Laming's proposals alone could have prevented the death of baby P, but together they add up to a step change in front-line child protection, because no barrier, no bureaucracy and no buck-passing should ever get in the way of keeping children safe.
	As Lord Laming recommends, we will now establish a new cross-Government national safeguarding delivery unit both to support and challenge every local authority and every children's trust in the country as they fulfil their responsibilities to keep children safe and to drive continuous improvement in front-line practice across all services. The new unit will be staffed by experts from across central Government, local agencies and the voluntary sector and will provide an annual report to Parliament, including on the implementation of Lord Laming's recommendations.
	To guide the unit's work I am today appointing Sir Roger Singleton, the former head of Barnardo's and a leading expert on child protection, to be the Government's first ever chief adviser on the safety of children. Sir Roger will advise us on how to update and strengthen our statutory guidance for front-line staff to make it absolutely clear to every agency and every practitioner what they need to do to keep children safe.
	Lord Laming also recommends that full serious case reviews must remain confidential to protect vulnerable children and ensure the full co-operation of all witnesses. We will strengthen the independence and quality of serious case reviews. The unit will monitor their implementation to ensure both that lessons are learned and that public executive summaries are full and comprehensive.
	Effective child protection depends critically on strong local leadership and accountability, so that everyone is clear about who must do what to keep children safe. We are already legislating in the House to ensure that every local authority has a statutory children's trust board to improve all the outcomes for children and young people. We will strengthen the role of the local safeguarding children board both to make it, in effect, the local watchdog for the protection of children and to hold the children's trust and local agencies to account.
	We will set out in the revised statutory guidance our presumption that all local safeguarding children boards will have an independent chair. We will also set out that the director of children's services and the lead member for children's services will always be members of both the children's trust board and the LSCB, and that the chief executive and leader of the council will be required to confirm annually that their local arrangements comply with the law. Because keeping children and young people safe is everyone's responsibility, we will open the child protection system up to greater public scrutiny by ensuring that two members of the general public are appointed to every local safeguarding children board in the country.
	When children are at risk, it is the skills, confidence and judgment of front-line professionals that make the biggest difference. As Lord Laming says:
	Every day, thousands of children are helped, supported and in some cases have their lives saved by these staff.
	But he is also right to say that
	rather than feeling valued for their commitment and expertise, professionals across these services often feel undervalued, unsupported and at risk.
	That has to change. That is why the Health Secretary and I have set up the social work taskforce, which will now take forward Lord Laming's recommendations on the training and professional development of social workers. I have already asked the taskforce to review the effectiveness, the procurement and the IT used in integrated children's systems, which it will report on next month, so that social workers can keep detailed records of their cases and spend more time with vulnerable children.
	In addition to the longer-term reforms that the taskforce will propose, we will act now to ensure that all newly qualified social workers starting this year will receive a year of intensive induction training, supervision and support. We will introduce from this year a new advanced social work professional status to ensure that the most highly skilled social work practitioners can stay close to the front line and have better career progression. We will also expand the graduate recruitment scheme and attract qualified social workers back to the profession and ensure over time that all practitioners can study on the job for a master's level qualification.
	Because we must do more to support leaders across children's services, I am also today accepting proposals from the chief executive of our leadership college to expand its remit, to introduce a new leadership programme for directors of children's services from September and to create a new and accelerated programme for those with the greatest potential to become future children's service leaders.
	Lord Laming also identifies further recommendations for the health service, the police, the family courts and the inspectorates. I can tell the House that the Health Secretary is today announcing a new programme that will provide additional support and development for health visitors. The Home Secretary will now take forward Lord Laming's recommendations further to improve the skills and capacity in child protection in the police. In line with Lord Laming's recommendations, the Justice Secretary is announcing that Mr. Francis Plowden will carry out a review of court fees in care proceedings. If there is evidence that they are a barrier for local authorities when deciding whether to proceed with a care order for a vulnerable child, we will abolish them. And, with Ofsted already strengthening its inspection process and introducing unannounced inspections every year for front-line social care practice in every area of the country, the inspectorates will respond to Lord Laming's recommendations by the end of April.
	In its annual performance assessment, Ofsted rated safeguarding services in 101 out of 150 local authorities as good or outstanding. But where children are not being kept safe, we will act. In December, eight local authorities were judged inadequate in their safeguarding of children. We immediately sent in our intervention experts to assess the situation in each of them. As the House knows, Haringey has already submitted its action plan to Ofsted for evaluation. Improvement notices and additional support are now in place in Surrey, Birmingham, Essex and West Sussex, and independent performance reviews are under way in Reading and Wokingham.
	The Minister for Children, Young People and Families and I are particularly concerned about the serious weaknesses identified in Doncaster. In recent weeks, we have commissioned an independent performance review, which has concluded that, despite significant investment over the past year and some progress, urgent improvement is still required. On Tuesday, the Children's Minister met the leaders of Doncaster council. Using powers in the Education Act 1996, the Children's Minister has today written to the council giving it a formal direction immediately to appoint Mr. Tony Elson to chair an independent improvement board that will report directly to Ministers, to submit an improvement plan to be approved by the new board and to co-operate with my Department to bring in a new senior management team to take over the leadership and management of Doncaster children's services as soon as practicable.
	It is our first duty in government and as a society to do all that we can to keep our children safe. It is also our responsibility to act decisively, as we have done in recent months, as we are doing today in Doncaster and as we will do in the coming weeks to implement all Lord Laming's recommendations. I hope that all parts of the House will support our actions to keep children safe in every part of our country. That is our duty and, as Lord Laming says, it is something that every child should be able to depend on. I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Gove: The events that we are reflecting on today were horrific and they still haunt the nation's conscience. Protecting vulnerable children is a duty that I know the Secretary of State takes seriously and none of the questions that I ask today are intended as criticism of him personally. May I thank him for allowing me to read Lord Laming's report earlier this morning and for early sight of his statement?
	May I also thank the Secretary of State for the speedy manner in which he has taken steps to rectify problems in both Doncaster and Haringey? We all know that the director of children's services in Haringey was dismissed some time ago. Will he update the House on what has happened to the other officials who were suspended in Haringey at that time?
	I also welcome the steps taken today to review the impact of court fees on care proceedings. The Secretary of State has said that he was sure that the high level of court fees was not a barrier to taking children into care who needed that step. We welcome the fact that he will now look again at that decision.
	I also thank Lord Laming for his diligent work in the report. He has done a great deal of useful analysis of the weaknesses in our child protection system and his report is powerful in its condemnation of the bureaucratic burden faced by social workers. He reports that
	a tradition of deliberate reflective social work practice is being put in danger because of an over-emphasis on process and targets, resulting in a loss of confidence amongst social workers.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what he will do to reduce the burden of bureaucratic compliance and the number of targets faced by front-line professionals?
	Lord Laming spells out in great detail the consequences of the bureaucratic burden. Vacancies in social work departments are running at more than 12 per cent., compared with just 0.7 per cent. for teachers. Turnover rates are high, with two thirds of local authorities reporting difficulties in engaging social workers and three quarters of social workers reporting that case loads have increased worryingly since 2003. Lord Laming reports that front-line social workers experience
	low staff morale, poor supervision, under-resourcing and inadequate training.
	They face high levels of stress and there are formidable recruitment and retention difficulties. Social work, he records, is a Cinderella service and we now have, in his words, a crisis in social work. Does not the Secretary of State agree that that is a remarkable indictment of the state of child protection in this country? Where does the responsibility for that failure lie?
	Will the Secretary of State also tell us what urgent practical steps he is taking, beyond the creation of a new quango, to raise morale, to ensure that resources reach the front line and to reduce red tape? Lord Laming's report is again scathing about the unwieldy and overly bureaucratic nature of the regime currently in place. He reports that the central bureaucratic tool used to help children at riskthe comprehensive assessment formis
	in danger, like other tools, of becoming process-focused, or... a barrier to services for children.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he has to simplify this area of bureaucracy?
	Lord Laming's report also reveals the significant problem with the information technology systems that are supposed to help child protection. He reports that help for children is being
	compromised by an over-complicated, lengthy and tick-box assessment and recording system.
	The IT system that the Government favourthe integrated children's systemis reported by Lord Laming as hampering progress, with the best local authorities having to
	find ways to work around the system.
	One of the best local authorities for children's services, Kensington and Chelsea, has abandoned the Government's overly bureaucratic approach to IT and set up its own much more flexible and professional-friendly system. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the IT system that he favours will no longer hamper progress? What steps has he taken to learn from those local authorities, such as Kensington and Chelsea, with first-class child protection records?
	Is it not clear overall that we need a shift, led from the centre, in the culture of child protection to put improving the work force ahead of adding to the quangocracy or finding new boxes to tick? Should not that shift in culture mean a significant extra investment in a universal health visitor service? Lord Laming argues persuasively that the role of health visitors is crucially important. He points out that an evaluation of 161 serious case reviews showed that nearly half the children who suffered terrible harm were under one year of age but only 12 per cent. of them were subject to a child protection plan. Many more of those children at risk might have been identified, if we had a truly universal health visitor service supporting children from birth. Will the Secretary of State now offer his support for the proposals put forward by the leader of my party for an expansion of the health visitor service to make it truly universal?
	We are, as I have said, very grateful to Lord Laming for his report. It contains a great deal of useful testimony and evidence, but it is stronger in analysis than in recommendation and better at explaining what has gone wrong than spelling out how to put it right. It exposes the problems with the current level of bureaucracy, but far too often falls back on recommending more bureaucracy as the answer.
	Crucially, Lord Laming recognises that serious case reviewsthe policy inquests that follow the death of a vulnerable childare valuable tools for learning lessons to enable us to avoid making similar mistakes in future. He points out that the lessons from serious case reviews need to be better learned and more widely disseminated, but he fails to recommend that they now be published in full. Refusing to publish serious case reviews after a child's death is like keeping the information from an aircraft's black box secret after an aviation disasterit prevents us from learning the lessons that we need to learn and from debating openly how we keep children safe. We cannot have a situation where we keep terrible errors secret because we will not face down those involved. The lessons of the past year are clear: buck-passing and back-covering cannot come ahead of protecting vulnerable children. Will the Secretary of State please think again on this issue and put children first?

Edward Balls: I appreciate the careful way in which the hon. Gentleman has responded to Lord Laming's conclusions. I shall respond to his points, and I reassure him from the outset that the new national unit and the appointment of Sir Roger Singleton is not just another quango and another adviser. This will have a real impact on the translation of best practice into common practice in all areas of the country. As the hon. Gentleman reflects on the proposal, I hope that he will be able to support it.
	Let me deal with his points in turn. On officials in Haringey, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it was my decision in December to remove the then director of children's services from her position, but the issue of the appointment of staff, their terms and conditions and their continuing appointment is a matter for Haringey council, not for me. These matters are with Haringey at the moment; the council is going through the proper processes, so it would not be wise for me to comment now on the stage they have reached with different officials.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about court fees. I think I set out clearly the reason why we are having a review. It is made clear in Lord Laming's report that there is no evidence to suggest that court fees have led to any change in the number of referrals to the courts. In fact, over recent months, there has been a substantial rise in referrals. As I have cited in the House before, the president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services has said that it is aware of
	no circumstances where a local authority would put court costs as a consideration ahead of the needs of a child.
	We will carry out the review and look carefully at this issue, but unless we can demonstrably show that that statement is absolutely true, we will abolish court fees from the beginning of the coming financial year.
	On the issue of process and targets, we are going to look very carefully at the national targets in our indicator set, which Lord Laming asked us to do, but I urge Conservative Members to be very careful about how they proceed here. We have made substantial progress since 2004; in that year only half51 per cent.of all initial referrals of children at risk were assessed within seven days, whereas the latest figures show more than 70 per cent. doing so, which is a substantial difference. The focus on quick assessment happened because of the targets. It is important that we do not use wrong targets or targets that distort, but it is also right to have rapid assessment of children at risk. I would like to go even further on that, so it will be looked at very carefully by the social work taskforce.
	On integrated children's services and bureaucracy, I have made it clear that hiding behind a computer screen or bureaucracy and procedure is not the right thing to do professionally if we want to keep children safe. That would be the wrong thing to do, and I have asked the social work taskforce to look at all those issues, including the operation of integrated children's services, and to report by the end of April. We are going to move quickly. Only last week, I was in Derby talking to social workers in that city, where I heard their concerns about ICS and saw it operating in practice. I know that many authorities in the country are finding that that system is actually leading to more effective and efficient decision making, speeding up the way in which they can comprehensively get on and do their work. I do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, which is why it is important we do this properly. The social work taskforce will take this forward.
	There is often confusion between the common assessment framework and integrated children's systems. In my experience and from what I hear, CAF processes are working well around the country, but if the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I would be happy to hear more about it.
	On the issue of health visitors, it is right to have significant investment, and we have put significant investment into our health system. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is announcing today that, as we prefigured in the child health strategy a few weeks ago, there will be a significant increase in the number of health visitors. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that that happens, but I have to say to him that absolutely the wrong way to do it would be to cut the Sure Start budget, which is there to ensure early intervention and protection of children.
	The fact that many children who come to harm are not known to the authorities should be addressed by our children's centres. To cut children's centresto be honest, to cut the children's budget more widelywould be absolutely the wrong thing to do. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition and suggest to him that he may need to realign his thinking on that particular point.
	The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his view that serious case reviews should be published. He has also been consistently isolated in holding that view. Not only Lord Laming, but the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children's Commissioner, as well as pretty much every expert in the field, disagree with him. They all agree that a public, fully comprehensive executive summary, alongside a confidential full report, is the right way to go. The hon. Gentlemanprobably badly adviseddug himself into a hole on that issue in the first few days when it came to light. I say to Conservative Members, Sometimes, if you get it wrong, just change your mind. You are absolutely wrong on this particular issue.
	That takes me to a wider issue. As Lord Laming's report saysthere is a widespread consensus that is reflected across the country, across experts and across professionalsthe 2004 Every Child Matters framework is the right framework for child protection. Our challenge is to implement it effectively in every area. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree, and therefore disagreed with the idea of Lord Laming being asked to produce the report in the first place, but again I say to him, Read the report, reflect and think again. I do not think that to go back on the 2000 reforms would be the right thing to do and, with the exception of the Conservative party, neither does anybody else.
	The right thing to do is ensure that the framework is properly implemented, which is what we will do. In his press conference this morning, Lord Laming said that he hopes that his report has enough compelling logic, enough compelling urgency and enough compelling determination that people can sign up to it. I believe that this is a compelling vision, and we will, with determination, ensure that all the recommendations are now implemented, which is the right way to keep children safe.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and congratulate Lord Laming on a thoughtful report. I also thank the Secretary of State for early sight of it.
	It will take time to absorb the 58 recommendations of this well-argued report, but may I make a few points to the Secretary of State? First, one notices that Lord Laming is frustrated when he says, Now just do it. He thought that in his first report. If we are just going to do it, many of the things in the statement are part of just doing it. Furthermore, just doing it also means a lot of resource implications. Social workers who are better trained, better energised and better respected will cost a lot of money. That needs to be done quickly.
	Lastly, if we are to keep the new protection of children post in the limelight, can that person report to Parliament through the Select Committee? That would give them a much more independent status, and we would provide public accountability, which many would welcome.

Edward Balls: I can assure my hon. Friend, whose Committee has great responsibilities in these matters, that Sir Roger Singleton, the new chief adviser, will report directly or give evidence to his Committee. We will ensure that Sir Roger gives evidence on his annual report. There must be proper scrutiny of that report and that must happen in the House. That is our commitment.
	It is also right, as my hon. Friend has said, that we need to raise the training, morale and effectiveness of the management of and support for social workers across our country. Often without public recognition, they do difficult, dangerous and sometimes brave jobs each day to keep children safe. We will ensure that the proper resources are there to support the expansion not only in the numbers, but in the training and support for social workers.
	We announced in November a 73 million investment in the next three years and we will add to that to ensure the proper training in the first year after qualification, plus the return of social workers to the profession, plus advanced social worker status, plus the new masters qualification. For the long term, there will be a reform and revamp of the whole of social worker trainingall that has been done and is properly resourced.
	It is important not only that we challenge social workers and their managers, but that we support them in doing that difficult job. That is what we will do, and we will ensure that it is properly resourced.

Annette Brooke: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for providing sight of the Laming report and of his statement. I also add my thanks to Lord Laming for producing this timely report.
	We really have to ask today, Are things going to change? I recall discussing these issues in 2003 before the Children Act 2004. We all said, We must have more social workers, more training of social workers and more training in multi-agency working. Six years on, and nine and a half years since the tragic death of Victoria Climbi, it is significant that the first recommendation of Lord Laming's report refers to national leadership, which is quite an indictment after all these years. I might justifiably ask the question, what training will there be for Ministers and senior civil servants in multidisciplinary working?
	I welcome today's statement on Doncaster, but reflect on the fact that, since 2004, there have sadly been seven deaths of children. I also welcome the national safeguarding children unit. I have two questions. Will early intervention be an integral part of the work of the unitwhich is all important if we look beyond the deaths to the wider issue of child abuse, with so many children being affectedand will serious case reviews be reported through the Select Committee in the way that the NSPCC requested, in a biennial report drawing out lessons from serious case reviews?
	Training for children's services directors and lead members is welcome, but what about opposition members? My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) reported how difficult it is for opposition councillors, and indeed for her, to get information, although they were asking questions. There is a place for considering the role of scrutiny in local government, as well as that of lead members.
	I would like what has happened with adult social services to be taken on board in relation to the reorganisation and children's services. We give somebody one and a half jobs, and then put adult social services on the side. Vulnerable children become vulnerable adults, and I understand that 15 authorities are pulling adult social services back, but one at least has a very low rating. Lord Laming has one paragraph on that matter, which should be looked at as a matter of urgency.
	There have been a number of U-turns, which I welcome. Most of all, we need to consider the training of social workers and, indeed, of all front-line professionals who come into contact with childrenfor example, teachers need to be trained to recognise the early signs of child abuse. I want to be reassured that we will no longer hear of heavy case loads for social workers. How can newly trained social workers do their work with heavy case loads and limited supervision? I really feel that we have reached a point where a lot has been done, but there is so much more to do. There has to be genuine commitment.
	I also repeat my request to the Secretary of State that, over a longer period, we should have fresh eyes looking at the whole system. Lord Laming set up the system and has reviewed it, but those fresh eyesperhaps reporting to the national safeguarding children unit, a multidisciplinary teamwill, I hope, add to the safety of our children.

Edward Balls: While I was, of course, disappointed that the Liberals' shadow spokesman could not be here, the hon. Lady has great expertise in these matters and her points are well made. I will take them all very seriously.
	The hon. Lady is right that things must change, and Lord Laming says that too. He also says:
	A great deal of progress has been made... and the Government deserves credit for its policy of Every Child Matters.
	It is important to recognise that there has been substantial improvement in child protection in many areas of the country. The fact that we have more than 100 authorities that are good or outstanding is good news, but it is important to say that it is not yet good enough. It is no good having good practice in some or many areas. We want the best practice in all areas. That is our challenge and what Lord Laming drives us on to do.
	I must also say to the hon. Lady that there is a real commitment from central Government, not just from my Department but from the Health Secretarywho was previously the Secretary of State for Education and Skillsthe Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and others, to work closely with the national unit to ensure best practice everywhere. I take her point that we need to do more, but the new unit is a step forward.
	On scrutiny, the hon. Lady is right. As I said in my statement, it is important that we open up the arrangements for child protection to wider public scrutiny. The local safeguarding children board should therefore become the watchdog for child protection, and it is important that lay members of the general public sit on that board. Effective and proper scrutiny of what is happening should be provided not only by the House but by local councils around the country. If we need to do things to improve that, and to improve training for members involved in scrutiny, we are happy to consider that as part of our work on statutory guidance in the coming weeks. That is the best way to ensure the fresh pair of eyes at local and national level.
	I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to focus on the training, progression and numbers of social workers, but also on their pay and morale. It is concerning that these days we do not keep social workers in the profession in the way that we keep teachers in teaching. That is partly because we do not currently have a proper way for social workers to progress and develop in their professional understanding without moving out of social work practice into management. That is why the advanced social worker status is very important.
	It is also incumbent on management in social work to do their bit. Lord Laming said at his press conference this morning that we must move away from a situation where the most junior member of staff feels the full weight of responsibility for child protection, and that is right. Front-line social workers deserve not only better support and challenge, but understanding and engagement from management throughout social work, up to director of children's services level. That is an important part of our response to Lord Laming's recommendations, and an especially important remit for the social work taskforce.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members seek to catch my eye. Unless both questions and, hopefully, ministerial answers are considerably briefer, an awful lot of hon. Members will be disappointed.

Phyllis Starkey: May I ask the Minister what steps are being taken to improve the training of Ofsted inspectors and Ofsted in general? He may be aware that serious abuses have just been revealed at the Gatehouse special school in Milton Keynes, yet in 2006 the Ofsted inspection commented favourably on the school, and missed the fact that its recruitment procedures were so poor that unqualified staff who had not been properly checked were widespread and that restraint of behaviourally challenged boys was a first resort of staff rather than a last resort. Ofsted needs to be better trained.

Edward Balls: The issue is raised by Lord Laming in his report, the chief inspector is alive to it and the Select Committee has raised it. Compared with last year, there has been a real change in the way that inspections are being done. We will no longer have desk-based inspections, but unannounced visits. Lord Laming makes the important point in his report that inspection of social care and child protection must also be about learning, and needs to be more engaged than the school-type inspection that Ofsted has done in the past. The chief inspector will include that issue in her response to Lord Laming's report by the end of April.

Edward Timpson: One of the major failings of the court system involving children in child protection is the movement of cases from one judge to anotherfrom hearing to hearingand the lack of judicial continuity from start to finish. Will the Secretary of State raise that issue with the Justice Secretary, to ascertain what measures can be put in place to ensure better provision of judicial continuity, especially for care proceedings involving our most vulnerable children?

Edward Balls: Lord Laming does not raise that issue particularly in his report, but we will make sure that we keep a close eye on all these matters. A substantial amount has happened in the past year to improve the operation of the family courts, but we are happy to keep the matter under review.

Meg Munn: Thousands of words have been written about cases that have tragically gone wrong. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that greater focus is given to identifying good practice, looking at what works, ensuring that that information is properly collated, and importantly, celebrating social workers and managers who are keeping children safe, because that will be part of properly valuing social workers?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has great expertise in these matters. The doctor who performs a life-saving operation, the police officer who solves the crime, the firefighter who saves a lifethose are all examples celebrated in our newspapers. The fact is that a social worker who protects a child from harm does not get the same praise and recognition publiclyperhaps inevitably, to protect the identity of the child. But we need to do much more to celebrate the great work of many social workers around the country. That is a priority for the unit, in order to ensure that the best people come into social work in future.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that it was not necessarily always a good idea to merge education and social services departments, and that it is not always a good idea to split up child services from adult services? Does he agree that giving local authorities the flexibility to decide how such services can be most effective is the right way forward?

Edward Balls: As I pointed out in my response to the Opposition spokesman, there is a widespread consensus on the importance of the Every Child Matters reforms in the 2004 Act, but regrettably the Conservative party is outside that consensus. As Lord Laming says, there is no doubt that bringing such services together under one local authority department has provided a more integrated approach to support children. It is clear that we have further to go, which is why we will ask the National College for School Leadership to expand its remit to support directors of children's services. But do I think that there should be local authority discretion to deviate from the 2004 Every Child Matters framework? Absolutely not.

Tony Wright: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but does not the fact that we keep returning to the issue mean that there is a more general lesson for all of us? When we have crises, scandals and issues, it is easy to pass a new law, set up a new body or institute a new procedure, but if nothing changes on the ground we have not done very much. What makes organisations as they are is their culture. There is something going wrong with social work, and unless we rebuild the social work profession in a serious sense, we will keep returning to the issue.

Edward Balls: The fact is, though, that there has been great change on the ground, and we will ensure that that is accelerated in future. From time to time, as we have seen in recent weeks, parents do evil things to children, and sometimes there is deception of social workers as that happens. But when that comes to light in authorities there must be action, and that did not happen in Haringey. We need to sort that out for the future.

George Young: The Secretary of State will know that there has been a high turnover of front-line staff in children's services, particularly in inner-city areas. What more can he do to promote social work as a career of choice for those seeking a professional career? What more can be done to keep them in that profession and allow them to progress without so many of them leaving because of pressure of work?

Edward Balls: The answer is the advanced professional status that we have announced today. It is important that social workers can have career progression without having to move from the front line into management. We need to improve that in the way in which we pay and promote social workers.

Laura Moffatt: Crawley residents were horrified to learn that West Sussex was on the list of those authorities whose services were deemed to be inadequate for safeguarding our children. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that there is an absolutely priority to ensure that the 58 recommendations are urgently implemented in West Sussex to supplement the work already being done by his Department?

Edward Balls: It is important for the recommendations to be implemented not just in West Sussex but in every other local authority in the country, but owing to our specific concerns about that authority, the spotlight of scrutiny will shine on its area in particular.

Shailesh Vara: Following previous tragedies such as that of Victoria Climbi, there have been many inquiries and reports. All have shown good intentions, but sadly many authorities have not implemented their proposals, with the result thatas was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)we keep returning to the issue. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that, on this occasion, the proposals will be implemented? Is there a time frame within which they must all be implemented, so that this report does not just lie in their in-trays?

Edward Balls: It might be more helpful if Conservative Members did not urge local authorities not to implement the recommendations. The Every Child Matters framework should be the law in every area. Although 101 authorities are already considered to be good or outstanding, we want 150 authorities to merit that description. Those authorities should be implementing the law and best practice now, and we will drive the system until we can be assured that that is being done everywhere.

Gisela Stuart: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that improvement notices and additional support were now in place in Birmingham. Meetings attended by Members with both Ofsted and the city council have featured a spirit of openness and co-operation, but as my right hon. Friend said, serious case reviews must remain confidential. How can it be ensured that organisations do not return to their instinctive practice of using the need for confidentiality as a reason to be extremely inward-looking, and thus to avoid accountability?

Edward Balls: Every serious case review must be subject to a full, comprehensive and public executive summary, and when case reviews have proved to be inadequate we have required authorities to conduct them again. It is important for the work to be done in a spirit of openness and co-operation, and we believe that opening up the process by appointing lay members to the safeguarding board will achieve that.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State has accepted Lord Laming's recommendations and taken action to implement them as a matter of urgency, but may I press him a little further? Can he give us an idea of the overall time frame within which they must all be implemented?

Edward Balls: We will have responded to all the recommendations by the end of April. In the spring we will change our statutory guidance, which is the way in which we ensure that the law is implemented as a matter of urgency. We are making decisions today that will allow us to start implementing some of the recommendations immediately, and that will be done at the fastest possible rate consistent with doing it well.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the emphasis on training in both Lord Laming's report and my right hon. Friend's statement. I also welcome the establishment of a social work taskforce by my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Health, but would it be possible for it to include the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills? Reading university is currently planning to close its social work education department, which means that there will be no such department in the whole of Berkshire. Oxford university has already closed its social work department, as has the London School of Economics. There is a crisis in quality social work education in our universities.

Edward Balls: It is vital for undergraduate education in social work to be of the highest quality, and to prepare professionals for practice on the ground as well as teaching the theory. That will be a priority for the taskforce, and I will ensure that its members examine the capacity of the system to train social workers as well as the content of the course. I am sure that they will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.

Ann Coffey: Abacus, in my constituency, is one of the first health-led Sure Start centres, and its success in involving local parents lies in that focus on health. One of the problems encountered by social workers trying to monitor the well-being of children living with parents who have multiple problems, including drug and alcohol addiction, is the difficulty of persuading those parents to co-operate with statutory agencies, but they may be more responsive to health professionals. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that children's centres retain that strong health focus, and that social workers have the necessary powers to ensure that children whose parents cannot meet their social and emotional needs can benefit from the excellent child care provided in such centres? I believe that that would make better monitoring possible.

Edward Balls: We will accelerate our efforts to ensure that it happens. My hon. Friend and I have met to discuss the issue, and I know that she has great expertise in this area.
	In the case of family intervention projects and, more widely, Sure Start, when children are at riskwhen they are on the child protection register, or are subject to a child protection planit is important for them to be given all the support they need. That is partly a job for health visitors, but Sure Start has a vital role to play, and we will ensure that it is given that role.

Richard Burden: As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), there is a great need for transparency in Birmingham. While it is in no one's interest for anyone to be pilloried, it is important for Members to be kept informed of what Birmingham city council and others are doing. So far the signs are fairly good, but the council has a habit of claiming credit for anything that seems to be going right and finding someone else to blame when something goes wrong. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that does not happen in this instance?

Edward Balls: I will. The improvement notice applying to Birmingham is critically about public confidence, which must mean involving the public and Members of Parliament so that they can see that not only is progress being made, but proper diligence is being applied to the important work of child protection.

Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the report, but will he say a little more about the issue of prevention? Given that social workers and teachers provide children's services side by side, will he think carefully about how money can be restored to primary schools so that they can continue to carry out their important work of supporting children and parents in the community? If they are to do that, more funding is needed.

Edward Balls: The local safeguarding children board has a vital role, not just as a watchdog for children who are subject to a child protection plan, but in ensuring that the children's trusts are properly resourced and can work together on prevention and early intervention. Because it is vital for that work to include schools as well as the health service, we are legislating to give schools a duty to co-operate with the trusts. That is an important step towards achieving the objective identified by my hon. Friend.

David Kidney: There has been a damaging lack of clarity in regard to the training, responsibility and status of social care and health care workers with a duty to protect children. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that in future all of us, politicians nationally and locally, remain engaged long after the headlines have gone, in order to provide the necessary consistency and clarity?

Edward Balls: That is something that I have challenged the taskforce to consider. It is an important responsibility for the new unit. While it is incumbent on the Select Committee and the House to keep these issues under the public spotlight, that is also a responsibility for the social work profession, which needs to speak with a louder and clearer voice on the issues with which it deals. Practice and procedure should not only be subjected to external scrutiny; the profession itself should speak out with more confidence.

Kerry McCarthy: When considering child protection issues, will my right hon. Friend heed the worries about informal fostering arrangements, particularly the arrangements made when a parent has gone to prison and, in the asylum-seeking community, when children have arrived unaccompanied and are living with people who are not their natural parents? Does he agree that, at local level, we ought to know exactly who every child is living with, and whether the people concerned are the appropriate people to care for those children?

Edward Balls: That is a critical responsibility for the local authority and the children's trusts. In the case of Haringey, some of the informal arrangements were a problem, which was highlighted in the serious case review and will be highlighted when it is published again. We need to keep a close eye on the issue.

Dan Norris: Those who harm children by using intimidation and violence against them often act in the same way towards the professionals who deal with them. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the taskforce focuses carefully on intimidation by dysfunctional, dangerous, violent, aggressive and generally unpleasant and devious families? While I welcome the changes in the system that my right hon. Friend has announced and consider them necessary and appropriate, unless social workers out there in the field, or at the coal face, can apply them, that work will have been in vain.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right. He, too, has great professional expertise in this area. It is vital for us to provide proper training and support for front-line social workers who, as I have said, do what is often a dangerous job that may involve both deception and intimidation. The social work taskforce must examine that issue explicitly. Today the Health Secretary and I will write to every social worker in the country, telling them what we have announced today but also encouraging them to participate in the work of the taskforce. We hope that social workers throughout the country will take up our invitation.

Martin Salter: I entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) regarding the disgraceful closure of the social work courses at Reading university. It gives me no pleasure that the Secretary of State named in his statement two local authorities in my areaReading and Wokinghambut does he acknowledge that significant progress has already been made in Reading in improving the safeguarding of children, with Ofsted saying:
	Lead councillors and the new chief executive are providing strong leadership by driving through urgent measures to ensure rapid improvement?

Edward Balls: As I said, Reading is one of the authorities where we have sent in our diagnostic teamand I must say that in all the areas where we have done that, there has been real co-operation from the local authority leadership involved. Although the report has not yet come back to Ministers, I know that there is real and substantial engagement from the local authority, and a determination to make sure that any things that need to be changed are changed with speed and determination.

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but I ask him to acknowledge once again that social workers are often overworked and face extraordinarily complex situations, and that, added to this mix, they frequently face parents who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) said, can be seriously devious and can hide the abuse they are perpetrating. This is a very complex area, and training, personal mentoring and support for social workers is an absolute requirement.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, social workers are often unsung heroes doing a very difficult job, but to make sure that they can do their job with confidence and determination requires us to look at both resourcing and management, and the front-line support they get from management. We need to address this; we cannot simply leave individual social workers to do the job on the front line. They need more support and training, and we are determined to make sure they get it.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He referred to the compelling logic behind the report published by Lord Lamingcompelling logic that was contained in his last report, and which I think all Members must be fearful will be contained in the next report. The question I have for the Secretary of State concerns Ofsted. What steps will be taken to strengthen its capacity and competences to undertake the serious work of inspecting in respect of safeguarding children? Will he also answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) asked him about training and national leadership, and will he seriously consider submitting himself, his ministerial colleagues and senior officials in his Department to the training he expects others to undertake?

Edward Balls: I was clear that supporting the training of leadership, management and front-line social work is a priority. I do not claim to be able to second guess that professional judgment and professional leadership, as these are people who have studied and have had experience on the front line for many years, but of course it is important that we at the national level play our proper role to make sure that local leaders and social workers can do the difficult job that they are asked to do. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we as a House recognise not only the challenges we face for the future, but the substantial progress that has been made since 2004. Lord Laming is clear about that, and all of us in this House should be clear about it today.

Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that the best time to safeguard a child is in the generation before that child is born rather than immediately afterwards, by ensuring that when potential parents are babies, children and young people they have the appropriate social and emotional bedrock to be able to grow up and be parents? Will he therefore support alongside a late intervention policy, an early intervention policy, so that we not only continue to swat mosquitoes, but drain the swamp?

Edward Balls: I am not sure that I am fully happy with my hon. Friend's last analogy, but I agree with what he says about early intervention and prevention. It is vital that that is central to the thinking of our children's trusts and safeguarding boards, and of professionals throughout the country. It must also be central to Ofsted's thinkingand it is very important that Ofsted responds properly, as I am sure it will, to all the recommendations in this report. There is a real responsibility on Ofsted to make sure that it is also inspecting that there is sufficient capacity and leadership to have effective early intervention and prevention. As my hon. Friend says, that is, in the end, the only way to make sure we can both genuinely keep children safe and allow them to fulfil their potential.

Point of Order

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for me to use this opportunity to apologise to the House, as I believe I may have breached the new rules on the use of Commons dining facilities in relation to political fundraising? I hosted a lunch for a leading charity in a Commons dining room on 19 October 2007. I have written a full explanation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, asking for his advice and for him to take whatever action he considers appropriate. However, it is my understanding that he can neither give me advice nor investigate this matter at my instigation, and this may raise an issue that the House would wish to consider. I wish to acknowledge that although the new rules were not fully in force at the time, it was a mistake for me not to have taken proper advice at the time, so I apologise without reservation to the House for any breach of the rules, and I will place a copy of my letter to the parliamentary commissioner in the Library.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has made his position clear on the matter. It is now firmly on the record, and no doubt the House authorities will take note of what he said.

Public Accounts

Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the 30th, the 36th, the 39th to the 41st, the 43rd to the 49th, the 51st and the 57th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and of the Treasury Minutes on those Reports (Cm 7493, 7522 and 7545).
	As ever, I am delighted to open this debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In January 2002, in my first contribution as Chairman, I said that our duty was to act as the parliamentary laymen and women who hold the mandarins to account. As a Committee, we retain a unique relationship with the civil service. We ask the questions our constituents would ask if they were in our place. We do so without fear or favour, and without political rancour, and always for a positive purpose. In short, we promote and protect the interests of taxpayers.
	In the subsequent seven years of my tenure as Chairman, I do not think there has been a more important time than the present to prod, press and pursue those who run our public services, to make sure they get the most bang from our buck. I do not consider us remiss when the loudness of our own bang startles the occasional permanent secretary. It is, after all, a milder form of shock than Voltaire's original observation that we kill an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres, although judging from his occasional comments on the social background of those before usespecially those in uniformthe hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) might, perhaps, not be averse to such a punishment occasionally being dealt out to senior mandarins.
	While I am following a French theme, hon. Members may be aware that my views on the malevolent economic climate recently led one of our national newspapers to compare me with a great historical figure. Unfortunately, that figure was Marie Antoinette. I am therefore relieved that the word guillotine has a slightly different meaning in this place from that which it had in revolutionary France. I am bound to note, however, that spiralling national debt was one of the sparks that ignited the French revolution. I do not think it a party political point to suggest that our own growing fiscal predicament should sparkindeed requireanother kind of revolution: a genuine upheaval in the delivery of public services.
	In a recession, the demands on public services grow, and in this recession the public purse continues to slake the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the financial sector. Even should the Government be proved right and economic spring begin to bloom next year, there will be no escaping tough fiscal choices. To meet the expectations of those who fund and use public services without adding to the burden of debt, we need more than incremental reform; I believe we need a Whitehall revolution. It is in this context that we consider the work of the Committee today. In my view, it makes our work all the more relevant and all the more important. Our recommendations contribute to reform; perhaps our deliberations can help to stimulate this revolution in Whitehall.
	I want to focus on a few central themes. Some unkind critics say that much of what is said by Members in this place is spoken with one eye on tomorrow's headlines. However, when I say I want to talk about efficiency and financial management, I am sure Members will recognise that I must be motivated by more than the allure of an increased public profile. I doubt that this report will figure much in the tabloids tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is not important.
	I also want to touch on a third, more specific issue arising from the Committee's workhow the public sector works with the private sector. Such worthy topics are meat and drink to members of the Committee and, indeed, to the Minister herself. True efficiency is about delivering more out for the same in, or the same bang for fewer bucks. It must be the engine of our Whitehall revolutionat the top of every public servant's agenda. When people have to tighten their belt and watch the pennies, they expect the same from their own Government.
	I acknowledge that there has been progress in parts of Whitehall in improving efficiency and the effective delivery of Government programmes. I believe that I am less at risk than some in seeing some green shoots here, although in this case they are of reform, not yet, I fear, of revolution. I am happy to celebratewe have mentioned this before but it bears repeatingthe example of the work to update Jobcentre Plus offices. Given that it is one of the biggest public sector construction projects the UK has seen in recent years, we might have been forgiven for fearing the worst, but this tough project was delivered on time and within budget. It is worth dwelling on why.
	The project demonstrated the value of continuity in leadership, the importance of experience and the benefit of engaging local staff throughout a change programme. Members might think that I am attempting to lobby for them, or even myself, in celebrating the benefit of age and experience, but between them the senior management team that oversaw the Jobcentre Plus project boasted more than 100 years of front-line operational experience. They had all started from the very bottom, as clerical assistants. They knew how to run projects. There is no question but that the knowledge and savvy that this brought contributed to their success. We all know that the right team with the right skills on the right project can make all the difference. There is no need to throw endless sums of money at a project to make it work. What is needed is the right mix of experience and know-how, and, of course hard work. Whitehall needs to let those with the skills get on and do their jobs properly, and there is no reason why these projectseven IT projectsshould not be run successfully.

Don Touhig: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the HouseI would like to take part in this debate but I have to attend a meeting of Members' pension fund trustees shortly. I pay tribute to him and his chairmanship of our Committee. He makes a very important point about the successful operation of Jobcentre Plus. Does he share my frustration at the fact that the good practice that we do see in the PACwe do not see it very oftenis not shared across Whitehall? What can we do to make other Government Departments wake up and say, Here's a good way of doing something; let's copy it?

Edward Leigh: That is a very important point with which I agree entirely. It is very frustrating. This morning, the National Audit Office report on the new computer system for offender management was published. That is another disastrous project. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, we can help. I went out of my way on Monday in our Committee to congratulate Mrs. Lesley Strathie, who worked her way up from the bottom of the civil service and ran the Jobcentre Plus projects that we have helped to launch into the stratosphere. She is now chief executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customsan absolutely top job in Government. I think it is still the case that, with the exception of Mrs. StrathieI may be wrongthere are no other permanent secretaries who have actually run projects. There is no great mystery about this. We should reward public servants for delivering projects on time and on budget.
	Regarding this disastrous thing that we looked at with the NAO this morningthere have been other such projectsnobody has ever been sacked; nobody's career, so far as we know, has ever been harmed. We have to reward civil servants who perform properlyyes, even with bonusesand we have to be prepared to move sideways or even dismiss from their posts civil servants who do not deliver because, ultimately, the public suffer. In that regard, the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) was a very important one.

Angela Browning: I totally agree. It is typical for civil servants to be moved sideways if there is some terrible problem that they have been involved with. However, I wonder whether, in addition to the rewards that my hon. Friend is suggesting, there is a much more structured way of improving in-service training and skilling for existing civil servants, and of improving the training of new civil servants, so that those already in-post can benefit while in-post from the skills training they clearly need, and the necessary skills can be introduced in the core training.

Edward Leigh: Yes, we need a much better developed training system for civil servants.
	I have discussed the issue with Gus O'Donnell, the Secretary to the Cabinet, whom I have great confidence in and who is trying to change the whole culture of Whitehall in terms of training and a more professional approach. We must create almost a convention within Whitehall that someone who gets to the very top as a permanent secretary who advises Ministers must have run a project successfully. That is what happens in the private sector. People do not get to the very top of the private sector in an industrial company simply by advising the chairman or the chief executive on policy; they get there by delivering a successful project on time and on budget.

Ian Davidson: Is not one of the lessons to be drawn from the roll-out of the Jobcentre Plus office network shown in the response of the head civil servant to the point that I made about the social origins of her staff? As page 17 of the Committee's report shows, she responded by saying that only one of the top 23 members of staff in her department had come from Oxbridge. This is undoubtedly the most successful department that we have ever come across in terms of rolling out successful projects. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there could be anything more than a coincidence there?

Edward Leigh: I did not go to Oxbridge myself. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you went to Oxbridgeyou are not going to enlighten us. Anyway, we had better move on, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a very good one.
	Knowing that the public sector can sometimes get the job done makes it all the more frustrating when things go pear-shaped, as I am afraid they often do. Unfortunately, my Committee has found that excellence across the board still remains elusive. Let us take one examplethe Committee's report on the Department for Transport's initiative to share with its seven agencies a central unit of corporate services. The project was dreamt up as an efficiency drive aimed at saving the taxpayer 57 million by 2015. Sadly, what followed was an example at risk of ridicule, rather than a shining example of revolution. This inefficiency initiative managed to cost the taxpayer an extra 81 million, and on occasion the swanky new system took to communicating in Germannot so much Yes, Minister as Jawohl, Minister. Rather than obtaining the benefits of German efficiency

Richard Bacon: The computer says Nein!

Edward Leigh: Probably, yes. Rather than obtaining the benefits of German efficiency, the Department for Transport lumbered itself with inefficiency in German. I recognise that this is an extreme and perhaps amusing example, but our report suggests that there needs to be a more consistent focus on delivering efficiency.

Greg Knight: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to his Committee's 57th report. I notice that on page 5, the Committee report states:
	This case is one of the worst this Committee has seen and responsibility for these serious weaknesses rests firmly with some of its top officials.
	What disciplinary action has been taken against those top officials?

Edward Leigh: To be honest, I do not recallwe have 60 sessions a year; other members of the Committee are herebut at a guess, none, despite the staggering failure in project management. A project that was supposed to save some 50 million actually wasted 80 million. I think we were told, as we always are, that we are not entitled to pursue civil servants by name, and I do not think it right that we should. My father was a civil servant and I have a great sense of the ethos of senior civil servants. It is not for us physically to pursue, persecute and crucify them, but I do think that it is for the civil service itself to take to task people who are responsible for such a catastrophic failure.

Greg Knight: I totally accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I note that in its response to his report, the Treasury states at paragraph 4:
	There have been consequences for individuals responsible for those weaknesses.
	What on earth does that mean? Does he not agree that, at the very least, we ought to know what those consequences are?

Edward Leigh: It may be that we should pursue that matter further. I suspect the consequences are that promotion for those individuals has been less accelerated than it might have been otherwise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) said, that is usually the way of the civil servicepeople are never sacked, but sidelined. Traditionally, the deal in the civil service has been that people do not get bonuses, but they do not get sacked. It is a job for life, but people do not get paid terribly well. As a House, we have to think about the matter much more than we do.
	The financial rewards at the top of central and local government are very high. Permanent secretaries earn a minimum of 140,000 a year and their salaries can go up to 220,000 a year, and many civil servants earn far more than that because they are on bonus-related schemes. The whole culture of Whitehall is changing, and perhaps the traditional way of doing thingsthat civil servants are never sackedhas to be thought about again by the Government, but it is for them to make up their minds on that.
	We looked at a project run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the nine grant-making organisations it sponsors. We found that it spent a hefty 200 million to administer and pay out just 1.8 billion in grants without efforts to benchmark the grant makers' way of doing things against each other, or against other ways of working elsewhere, which we might have expected. The Department could have no idea of how other grant-giving organisations operate or of what the costs were. Ordinary times would require greater focus on efficiency than is evident from those examples, but today we face extraordinary times. I am concerned that, far from driving true efficiency in the everyday business of Departments, circumstances may be leading us to institutionalised inefficiency. Spending taxpayers' money is what Governments do, but we know that spending money is the easiest thing in the world; getting something practical for it is much harder.
	We have seen before that it is easy to increase spending rapidly on a service. We saw that as we drew up numerous PAC reports into the NHS and the Rural Payments Agency. We make no comment on or complaint about the increase in spendingthat is not our job. Too often, the rush to spend has been unaccompanied by any insistence on improved efficiency. When new money is put in, the taxpayer is entitled to expect identifiable improvements in productivity on the front line.
	As the Government bring forward spending plans to try to counter the recessionthe Department for Transport is one of the bodies most involvedwe must be vigilant in guarding against waste, and we should try to ensure that the efficiency gains we have achieved so far are protected as spending increases rapidly. There should be a forensic efficiency assessment of every proposal to buy now what was expected later. Accounting officers should be certain of the costs and benefits of moving money around, and we expect to see evidence that they have adopted the most efficient solution, not leapt at the most convenient spending opportunity.
	With so many pressures threatening efficiency, the public must be able to have faith in the savings claimed. The Committee has had to express scepticism over claimed efficiency gains in the pastI put that point to the Prime Minister myself, in the Liaison Committee. Our 2007 report cast doubt on the reliability of 74 per cent. of the savings claimed. I am not going to go into that again, and I have welcomed the fact that Departments' claims will now be subject to the independent scrutiny of the National Audit Office, which is very good news. I am pleased to say that the Treasury has already promised to take into account associated increases in costs elsewhere before proclaiming efficiency gains. That is becoming more and more important.
	As well as external scrutiny, the civil service needs far more internal challenge to how things are donea point emphasised by the recent National Audit Office report Helping Government Learn. In Departments' thinking, the question Is this the best way to do it? seems only to arise late. One of the challenges for my Committee is to help to shake Whitehall free from the mentality, wherever it remains, of, This is the way we work because this is the way we've always worked.
	True efficiency will not be achieved without an ongoing revolution in financial management in the public sector. We have seen some improvements in that area, too. I welcome the increase in the number of qualified finance directors sitting on the boards of Departments. Today, I note at last that that includes the Department with the biggest asset base: the Ministry of Defence, which now has a qualified finance directorwe have campaigned for that for years. However, that should be set in the context of a general lack of financial know-how among staff, who are not finance specialists. It simply cannot add up that the financial skills of the people who spend public money are not up to scratch.
	The Committee's report on managing financial resources highlighted the disturbing truth that only 20 per cent. of Departments base their policy decisions on a thorough assessment of the financial implications of their proposed actions. Departments will not get true efficiency unless they know the true cost of what they propose, and factor that into their decisions. It is all too easy to predict the results of that gap in financial skills. Things are better now, but in two successive years the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budgeted to spend more than it had been given by the Treasury. Anyone with experience of managing a household's weekly account knows that that would lead to disaster. If, halfway through the year, a Department has to invest creative energies in juggling funds to try to stretch its budget, or to make cuts to its planned programme of work, that can only be counter-productive and harm the delivery of public services. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is not for the Treasury to pull Departments out of the mire of their own making.
	My final theme reflects an environment in which revolution is already upon us, whether we like it or not. The days when the public sector designed, developed and delivered public services in splendid isolation are gone. Engaging with the private sector requires different skills and brings different risks. Public sector officials must have their eyes wide open to profiteering, and their commercial acumen honed by experience, especially in today's environment.
	It is not only in setting out the terms of a contract that we have seen problems. The Committee's report on changes to operational private finance initiative contracts showed that whether a PFI contract represents value for money for the taxpayer depends not just on the terms of the original deal, which is what we may have put emphasis on before, but on how the contract is managed over the next 20 to 30 years. Unfortunately, we found that many public sector authorities are not doing well enough in managing PFI deals once they are up and running, and too often that is down to the familiar problem of a lack of commercial expertise. If one adds to that the results of an NAO survey which found that more than 15 per cent. of PFI projects examined are not managed on a full-time basisunbelievablythe whole thing can start to look somewhat amateurish.
	In this case, as elsewhere, there are some green shoots. The Committee found much to laud in the Highways Agency project to introduce a better motorway communication system, delivering up-to-the-minute information for motorists. The small black cloud on this particular horizon was that it took five years to negotiate a deal that the agency had expected to be tied up in just two. But the agency was determined to sign the deal onlyand this is good newswhen it had set out exactly what it wanted at a price it could afford, and it successfully did so, which meant that it remained within budget and got the project delivered on spec and in good time. I do not know whether those involved went to Oxbridge, but they did it. In signing the agreement, the agency was also successful in passing many of the risks of the project over to the private sector contractor.
	Before I close, I want to take a moment to consider the broader implications of our reports for the scale of private sector involvement in public services in the current financial climate. In our last debate, I queried the level of debt being built up under PFI. It is staggering. There are 630 signed PFI projects, with a further 110 in the pipeline, amounting to hundreds of billions of pounds, but only last week the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that the embattled financial markets can no longer support these new deals, which is worrying, frankly. The Government will now act as banker to themselves, changing the balance of risk in deals, and with an uncertain exit strategy. Let us remember that the point of PFI was that we would get projects delivered on time and on budget, and that the risk would be passed to the private sector. We are now in an uncertain world. That is a sign of how revolutions have unforeseen consequences, and it will require the very best commercial skills to manage the risk to the taxpayer.
	It is not for me, as Chairman of the Committee, to cheer or decry any particular measure. The Government have a perfect right to do anything they likewell, within reason. However, my Committee will, I hope, continue to be the taxpayers' conscience, reminding Ministers and officialsshould they ever need such a reminderthat the test we apply is not simply, Can you spend? but rather, Can you spend wisely? I think that the work of our Committee is held in high regard, and that all its members would agree that we are privileged to serve on it. Our impact is the result of the hard work and commitment of all Committee members and I thank them for their dedication. In particular, I would like to thank the my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) who has left the Committee since the last debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) who, I am sure, will bring much to our deliberations. As ever, I would like to thank our clerk, Mark Etherton, and the Committee staff.
	Lastly, seven years ago, I commented on the importance of the National Audit Office to our work. That importance remains and I pay tribute to its work in providing so much evidence, across every conceivable aspect of Government activity.
	I want to thank, too, the current Comptroller and Auditor General, Tim Burr, for his efforts and his support for the Committee during his tenure and for taking on the National Audit Office on an acting basis at a difficult time. Last month, the Committee held its first ever pre-appointment hearing in its 150-year history with the Comptroller and Auditor General-designate, Mr. Amyas Morse. Mr. Morse, I am pleased to say, will be the first ever chartered accountant to hold the historic post of Comptroller and Auditor General. I pay tribute to Nick Macpherson, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, Tim Burr and Andrew Likierman, the new chairman of the NAO. We have worked together to make what I hope is a good choice. The Committee had no hesitation in declaring its confidence in Mr. Morse's suitability for the role and we look forward to working with him from the summer. I hope that the changes in the NAO's governance arrangements will also soon be put on a firm statutory base and we look to the Minister to try to make progress on that.
	Finally, many of the people whom we represent are going through tough times that are not of their creation. I believe that that makes the role of the Committee even more important. That role is not simply to scrutinise spending, nor is it solely to terrorise witnesses. As I said seven years ago, we do not want to be just an undertaker. We are, I believe, a practical force for good, trying to suggest how things can be done better. Taxpayers and officials both benefit when action is taken to give impact to our recommendations, when they are acted on promptly and when, once the Government say to Treasury Ministers that they have to do something, they actually do it. In our hearings and in our speeches in this debate, we can encourage the revolution in the delivery of public services that hard times require.
	As we go through these times of financial difficulty and flux, I can say with absolute conviction that one thing, at least, will remain consistent: the determination of the Committee to serve the interests of taxpayers, to stimulate change on their behalf and to hold the Government to account for what they do with our money. I commend the motion to the House.

Austin Mitchell: I apologise for the delay in getting to my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was halfway through writing the speech that I shall now deliver.
	The Public Accounts Committee is quite definitely the queen of Committees, from any point of view. Its work is centrally important and it does a vital job. From my brief experience as a member of the Committee, I think that it is doing that job very well and very effectively. I congratulate our Chairman on the guidance that he gives to the Committee and on the points that he has raised today, all of which are crucial.
	The Committee's work is a bit like the old American series about the cop called Friday: day and night, a dedicated body of men carry on a relentless fight against wasteful spending. It is a fight that has its ups and downs, but now that I have been on the Committee a little longer it is possible to discern common patterns in many of the problems that we face. Each report is exciting and seeing that it is implemented is important and interesting.
	A common pattern emerges from the bunch of reports that we are dealing with today and from our work over the years. It is useful to discuss that. One thing that emerges, for instance, is the constant desire of this Governmentand of most Governments in the populist climate in which we operate, where every Government want to show that they are in command of the problems, that they are dealing with the problems as they arise and that they are responding to public pressuresto change and to pull everything up by the roots and put it back again in a different order.
	That constant pressure to change causes many of the problems, because administration, proper financial controls and efficiency need a settled routine. Instead, we constantly change things. The Jobcentre Plus change commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), which was implemented by people who knew the business, who had grown up in the department and who had the skill to do it, has been very successful. Other changes have been a good deal less successful.
	While we are chopping and changing, the constantly grinding Gershon process of efficiency savings is working away in the Departments producing other changes. Those changes are often counter-productive. We saw in the Rural Payments Agency the consequences of the Gershon efficiency savings. The agency had shed staff who were to prove vital when it came to dealing with the rural payments, which was a big change on a huge scale with which the agency was not capable of dealing. It had to bring back the staff who had been got rid of because of the efficiency changes.
	We are seeing that problem now in the Valuation Office Agency with the argument about the business rates for port businesses. The VOA, which has been shedding staff due to the grinding away of efficiency savings, is effectively understaffed and did not carry through the necessary assessments of individual port businesses in 2005. Port businesses have been getting bills in 2008 and 2009 requesting back-payments going back to 2005, which they cannot pay.
	The Committee does not consider the constant process of economies, cuts and staff reductions produced by the Gershon efficiency savings. We should consider it as an overall subject. We should consider not just the burdens of change that Governments introduce so regularly but the effects that the grinding down of numbers has on the efficiency of the Departments. There are spectacular examples, such as the RPA and the VOA. Indeed, in Jobcentre Plus there were plans to shed large numbers of staff later this year, but at a time when the recession is producing far more work in Jobcentre Plus, more staff now have to be hired.
	The constant process of pushing staff numbers down and then responding to emergencies by bringing people back is a very unsatisfactory method of proceeding. The Committee could consider the process as a whole, and it is a common pattern that we need to investigate. The constant changes lead to gross inefficiency and they are not based on any reliable estimate of the costs. For example, the 14-to-19 education and qualification changes that were examined in one of the reports have been launched into with no assessment of the costs. Local providers have been left to devise their own systems, sometimes in consultation with the industries concerned about what the qualifications should be and sometimes without consultation. Each provider is going down its own path with no overall estimate of the costs of the change and of what should be done financially to make it work effectively. A substantial change has been rushed into without adequate assessment and without the provision of funds.
	We have produced a report on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Functions and agencies have been handed to DEFRA, but it has not been provided with the proper management ability, particularly when it comes to financial management. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, there is a dearth of financial experience and expertise in many of the Departments. The Treasury is trying to control things from outside, but it is the internal financial controls that are so important. In DEFRA, those controls have clearly been inadequate. It has been given extra agencies and functions and has faced crises that have led to increased spending, particularly those produced by emergencies such as flooding and by the rural payments fiasco. Those crises have resulted in haphazard economies and attempts to grapple with the situation without proper effective financial controls or financial expertise in the Department. Departmental change has to be backed by proper financial management, but we are not providing that.
	The second common pattern that I want to emphasiseunfortunately there is not much scope for doing so in the reports that we are dealing with todayis the obsession with employing consultants. We employ them for every problem that comes up, and the resulting bill is enormous. Overall, it amounts to 70 billion or more, but the assumption is that the necessary expertise is no longer available in the civil service. Matters that could and should be decided by advice from within the Departments concerned, and by proper planning by them, are now decided by consultants.
	The normal practice of consultants is to tell us what we want to hear. They wrap it up with statistics and managerial formulae, but they do not offer value for money. That is another common pattern that the Committee should keep an eye on.

Richard Bacon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the discussion about the use of consultants is often very general and that it needs to be more specific? Of course there are cases in which consultants have been used when they should not, but if one wants to build a motorway one does not consult only those civil engineers who are on the books. One hires them in when one wants to build the motorway, knowing that the rest of the time they will be employed on building a bridge in Saudi Arabia, or something else useful. Is that not a better way of using public money than employing people on the books full time?

Austin Mitchell: That is a specialised expertise and it is relevant to employ it as necessary. However, the problem goes wider than that, because the big accountancy houses that provide the consultancy services have no more experience or expertise than the Government Departments responsible for any particular service. It is the general use of consultants that causes the problems.
	The Government like to say that a matter has been reported on by consultants. That is why they employ them, but they should have the confidence to say what people in a Department think should be done, and how.

Angela Eagle: Where did my hon. Friend get his figure of 70 billion for Government spending on consultants? For the record, the amount is 900 million. That total fell by 31 per cent. between 2005 and 2008, so good progress is being madealthough I agree in general with his point that Whitehall Departments should not reach for the consultancy option too soon and without proper thought.

Austin Mitchell: The problem is a psychological onewe like the reassurance that a consultants' report gives us before we take action. I admit that the figure that I quoted was my own concoction, but I did not hire a consultantI made it up myself.

Richard Bacon: I think that the Minister was getting a bit excited at the thought that suddenly there was nearly 70 billion that the Treasury did not know about that could be used for something. We all know the hon. Gentleman's aesthetic temperament when it comes to statistics. I have completely forgotten what I wanted to say in this intervention! It was something to do with consultants and, if I remember, I shall let him know.

Austin Mitchell: The figure includes consultants employed by local government.

Richard Bacon: I have remembered what I wanted to say. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that people in government feel more secure if they have a consultants' report. Does he recall the case of the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita? Bids were made by Capita and PricewaterhouseCoopers, but there was a difference of 150 million between them. The Department concerned commissioned PA Consulting and paid it 300,000 for an assurance that both bids were compliant. They were, but that was because the terms of reference were drawn so loosely that almost any bid would have been compliant. Not only was that 300,000 completely wasted, but it gave false and misleading reassurance to that Department.

Austin Mitchell: I am dimly aware of that case. It casts a comic light on the whole procedure, but I am concerned about the rush to employ consultants without checking whether people in the Department can do the work. The problem is that we seem to need to reassure ourselves of the value of any change by getting it authenticated in a consultants' report.
	We need tighter management, so that those firms of consultants that have failed, or whose reports have proved inadequate, are excluded from future contracts. That lack of control is another problem but, although I have spent so much time talking about consultants, it is not a matter that appears in any of the reports that we are dealing with today. I shall therefore move on, delicately and gently, to another common obsessionthe private finance initiative, which our Chairman mentioned in his speech.
	More than 600 PFI projects have gone through so far, and more than 100 are in the pipeline. We are reaching a difficult moment, as many PFI contractssuch as Building Schools for the Future, and othersare crumbling because of the credit crunch, with the private sector no longer able to provide the necessary credit.
	This is an emergency, and it is interesting that the Government have said that some projects will be paid for out of the public purse. In my view, that is what they should have done in the first place. In this country, the PFI amounts to a sort of outdoor relief for capitalism: we shove money into the pockets of the private sector, at no great risk to it or benefit to us. The one benefit to the Government is that the use of PFI keeps projects off the public sector borrowing requirement. If we had been willing to defend borrowing and accept a higher PSBR, we could have done everything more cheaply and efficiently.
	However, PFI is a fact of life. Our report on it dealt with the need for proper project management in the service or sector where the contract work is being done. Again, the Treasury has failed to provide adviceto local government, for example, or the NHSabout how a project should be managed, or to ensure that a proper manager is in place to control the contract.
	When one looks at PFI contracts, one finds all sorts of excesses, such as the management charges that are imposed, for instance when a PFI contract is transferred to a special-purpose vehicle, or when services are provided. One of the more ludicrous examples was the charge for replacing light bulbs. How many PFI contracts does it take to change a light bulb? At the present rate, we might need another PFI contract to find out, but the imposition of management charges in an unsupervised and uncontrolled manner is a way for companies to extort money from a contract. The lack of specific management control by the recipient of a project, and of specific advice from the Treasury about how the project should be managed, is leading to waste.
	That brings me to another common failing: the inability of Departments to deal effectively with business or organised unions and pressure groups. For example, the management of health service contracts for GPs resulted in their being made much wealthier, but there was no dramatic improvement in the service provided to patients. We are now trying to catch up by asking GPs to provide more services and to open for longer hours, but the contract should have provided for such things in the first place.
	We more recently examined the new system of health service pay, and although it is right to provide a proper, effective structure, and everyone ended up being better paid, the system did not achieve the purpose of having more effectively trained and qualified staff, although that should have been what the contract was all about. That was a failure.
	We have not considered in these reports further failures in defence issues, but there is an inadequacy in dealing with those big interests and big problems.
	The last common fault that is worth considering overall is that, while we are spending money through the PFI contracts and consultancies, we are less adequate in raising the tax revenues to support doing so. We have been soft on tax avoidance and tax evasion. That comes out in the report on large company tax payments, where the resort of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is to appoint a customer manager to each company to maintain friendly relations, rather using than strict, powerful supervision like the American tax authorities, which are pretty tough on tax avoidance and tax evasion.
	We highlighted the problem of the relative inability of the teams that deal with tax matters and tax havens. Fortunately, we are now committed to dealing with tax havens and I am glad that the Prime Minister has made that a central issue. For many years, we have told HMRC and Treasury Ministers that the issue needs to be dealt with, and they have said, Very interesting. That's slightly shocking. Thank you for the information. We have gone away, and nothing has happened. Now, it will be a front-line issue. Jersey and Guernsey are already saying, Well, we are not tax havens. We're just rather nice islands, with a pleasant existence and a low-tax regime, so please don't call us tax havens. It is a big issue.
	The TUC report on the amount of money lost to the Revenue by tax manipulated through tax havens is startling. What we came across in the report on large companies is that Revenue staff are comparatively underpaid and under-skilled in dealing with the large teams that big businesses and tax consultants can mobilise. They are always leaping one step ahead in developing new devices, and the Revenue is lumbering slowly behind. It now proposes to bring back retired staff and put them into service again, but the problem is one of building up the expertise, paying them sufficiently and keeping them, given all the poaching done by the accountancy houses and big business. It is unsatisfactorythis, too, comes from the customs and excise reportthat the means of bringing in the tax are less well developed than the procedures for spending it. That is the essence of my observations today.
	Not only do we have a problem in ensuring that the reports are implementedon the whole, they arebut the procedure is unsatisfactory for us, because we are always being confronted by officials who are not responsible for the mess that has been created who promise to clean it up and ensure that things work okay. We are making posthumous changes. We are successful in individual reports, but we need to look at the common patterns of failings that produce such reports, because it has become clear over a long period that there are common patterns and that they should be dealt with as a pattern, rather than as specific issues.

John Pugh: One of the most worthwhile things that I do in the House of Commons is serve on the Public Accounts Committee. It is a pleasure, and the comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House today show that we are a very well adjusted group.
	I shall comment briefly on two points that I picked out from the speech made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He mentioned tax havens, which I anecdotally mentioned in a Statutory Instrument Committee, where I did not think that anyone was paying any attention whatsoever. I mentioned the Isle of Man. Within a few days of doing so, a delegation from the Isle of Man arrived, desperate to see me to explain that it was not really a tax haven after all and that it is largely dependent on fishing mackerel and the like.
	On the PFI point, one of my early experiences as a Member of Parliament was voting at a Liberal Democrat party conference against our public service policy, which was then known as the Huhne commission, on the grounds that it gave too much succour to the PFI. That move did me absolutely no good in terms of my promotion prospects in the party, but none the less there is a virtue in being right.
	Yesterday, I was involved in a debate where the Financial Secretary to the Treasury defended tax office closures, which is a tough call. I have got a lot of time for the Financial Secretary; he is a rational, reasonable person, who always responds to the points made and never makes forensic, rhetorical or unnecessary points. He made one very good point in the context of this debate. He said that, in a time of recession, when the call goes out for fiscal stimulus and big public spending, it is more important than ever to get value for money for public expenditure, and he is dead right on that point.
	The Government should see the Public Accounts Committee not as an occasional irritant, but as a useful ally, particularly in the eternal quest to get public money spent effectively. That can be done. It is not necessarily the case that the private citizen spends money effectively, as hon. Members will find out if they study any shoppermy wife or whoevernor is it necessarily the case that the public servant spends money profligately. However, it is the case that public servant lacks some of the incentives that a private citizen has to husband resources. Perhaps that is where a theme comes into the PAC. We have all picked out that no one seems to suffer, particularly when money is spent unwisely or when there is simply a bad project.
	A classic example is the Chinook case, which has been aired time and again, but it is self-evident that no one has fundamentally taken the blamepeople have moved up; people have moved on. In many environments, not necessarily with that project, people seem to acquire bonuses irrespective of their actual performance or efficiency. In other words, there seem in Whitehall to be few disincentives for poor performance. That is our concern. Incidentally, there are not simply few disincentives; there are many expensively acquired alibis for poor performancethey are called consultants. Now, as hon. Members have said previously, there is nothing wrong per se with consultants, always providedthis is not always sothat they are unconnected with the suppliers that they recommend.
	There is a lingering anxiety throughout many of our deliberations about the lack of client-side expertise. Recently, we had a session in which we talked about Building Schools for the Futurea massive Government programmeand I inquired about how many people who run that project have any construction experience. I was informed that the bulk of them are lawyers and that very few of them have pertinent experience in construction. I should have thought that Building Schools for the Future would naturally be a magnet for people with some kind of construction experience. However, I am genuinely far from believing that public servants do not want to get things right, and far from believing that they do not get satisfaction from getting things right. There are people whose services we are very fortunate to have, and whose efforts we should applaud; we have mentioned some such instances in this debate. What has eluded not just this Government, but many Governments, is the secret of encouraging optimum performance in public service.
	There is quite a good example in our report on NHS general practitioner contracts. Most people recognise that most GPs do a reasonably good job, but they also recognise that there is scope for progress. The Government and the Department of Health wanted GPs to work harder, more effectively and, in particular, proactively, so that we had a national health service that promoted health, and not a national sickness service that dealt with the problems when people suffered from ill-health. On the face of it, the method that the Department pursued did not seem wrong. In GP practices, good behaviours were incentivised under the quality and outcome frameworks. GPs were relieved of some of their loadout-of-hours work was taken off thembut the result of that plan was far from satisfactory.
	There was a huge cash bonanza for practice doctors, but not, sadly, for the doctors employed by the practice or for nurse practitioners. That was slightly depressing; in a sense, one would expect doctors to reward those who had helped them to get the marks, the rewards and the funds. There has been a boost to preventive medicine, and I do not dismiss that altogether. Clearly, there are certain effects that we are yet to seethere may be benefits to people having their blood pressure taken more regularly and the like. Unquestionably, though, one result of the changes was a rickety out-of-hours service. In sum, the quality and outcomes frameworks that the regime imposed on the doctors undoubtedly got things done that needed to be done, but to be absolutely frank, they also got things done that were simply rewarded. The Government were genuinely surprised by the volume of things that were rewarded that were done, and by the cost of that. When they got the bill, it took them aback.
	What we are proving, I guess, is that micro-management has good and bad effects. One could say, Well, what would be the alternative? Should the Government just let things go on as per usual? Incidentally, I recently discussed with a panel of British Medical Association people what alternative they would have put in place. What they said is quite salutary and worth taking on board. They said that it is healthy to assume a degree of professional pride rather than venal self-interest. If we assume one or the other, we are likely to get it. If we assume that professionals will behave venally, after a while they will be insulted by how they are treated, and they will behave differently as a result. The people from the BMA said, and I agree with them, that professionals are not opposed to benchmarking, transparency or peer comparison; all those things work as incentives for good, professional practice and are probably sufficient in themselves, without duress. Professionalism is not to be equated with self-interest or an absence of self-improvement, and it is certainly not to be identified with that phrase, the producer class.
	On the out-of-hours service, which we also looked at in our report, a different route was taken. GPs have been replaced by businesses, or the curiously named social enterprises, which are supposed to be slightly better than businesses, although I have never seen an adequate definition of a social enterprise. I refer to companies such as Serco, which is probably better known for running trains than for running aspects of the health service. Those businesses are commissioned by primary care trusts. In other words, they are answerable to quangosinexperienced, recently set-up quangos at thatwhich are answerable in turn to the regional health authorities or the Department of Health, but certainly not directly to the people whom they serve. As a result of the way in which the contract was set up, they were given insufficient funds, because costs were deliberately underestimated. That was done for a particular reasonno one wanted the GPs to opt out and back out of the deal. The money was to come from the GP pot. Had the bodies taken more than was needed, or more than the GPs were prepared to bear, there would have been a problem. Across the country, the record shows that PCTs are now having to find extra money to deliver a satisfactory out-of-hours service.
	The result is unquestionably fewer tired doctors, but it is also more difficulties in communication between the out-of-hours service and GPs. As I have said, there are cost pressures on providers and PCTs, and we have, essentially, a more remote service. If I may make a constituency point, that is certainly true in my area, where much of what is happening appears to be driven by cost. The process has certainly not been consulted on, and it has certainly replaced a superior service. Current provision is failing to integrate with the previously excellent, but now demoralised, district nurse service. In other words, our research and our reports tend to show that throwing out the professionals does not necessarily increase efficiency, value for money or quality of service.
	I shall conclude on this point, because there is something that the Government can learn and are learning from it. A Hegelian dialectic is being played out in government. We once used to think that professionals and public servants do their best and should be left to their own devices to do their best. That was, in a sense, the thesis. We replaced that with the new Labour view that public servants need to be challenged, outsourced, bound to targets, incentivised, micro-managed, plugged into commercial values and, if that does not work, exposed to competition. That was the antithesis, so to speak.
	The evidence suggests that we may gradually be arriving at a satisfactory synthesis, where the public servants and the professionals simply need to have a structure put in place in order to see professional judgment and experience rewarded and encouraged. That is not what happened in the case of the doctors' contract, and it is not what happens time and again, but anything that the PAC can do to facilitate that process is more than welcome.

Angela Browning: I join the Chairman of our Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), in thanking all those who help to support the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, which provides us with so much information through its reports.
	Today, we are considering 14 reports that have been produced since the House last debated the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I shall do as others have done and pick out some of the themes that recur in departmental reports. Many of the reports deal with a specific issue or responsibility within a Government Department, and sometimes not only the core Department, but the agencies for which that Department has responsibility. Increasingly, common themes emerge about which we have particular concerns, yet the same themes recur in subsequent reports.
	We take a Department-by-Department approach, but sometimes one wonders whether there should be not only a cross-departmental approach but a cross-Government approach to the commonly recurring problems, some of which are systemic within a given Department, and some of which may be systemic within the functioning of Government.
	It is easy to say that the workings of Government should seek to reflect the efficiency of the way in which the commercial sector works outwith Government. But having entered the House 17 years ago from a business background, including working for some years in a manufacturing company, I have learned that it is wrong to assume that everything that one sees put into practice outside this place can be transposed to the workings of a Government Department. That is not to say that Government Departments and those who work in them cannot learn a great deal from commercial operations in the areas where we have identified repeated problems, not least in the management of the Government's operation.
	As a personal observation, when one comes into the House of Commonsespecially if one is fortunate enough, as I was in the early part of my political career, to be involved for a period in government as a junior Ministera big difference is that decision making is so much slower in government than it is outside. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation, as I have, or even in the small and medium-sized enterprises that we often pick as exemplars of how to do things, knows that the route by which key decisions are made is usually so much more transparent. It is so much easier to identify where the decision-maker is, and getting a decision to deal with problems or to initiate a project is so much faster.
	It is tempting to say that decision making will inevitably be slower in government, because a legislature is involved; issues might require primary legislation for policy to be drafted, and the procedures of Parliament must be put in place before action can be taken. All those are self-evident reasons as to why things are slowed down. However, such considerations do not always apply, certainly not in respect of the National Audit Office reports that the Public Accounts Committee examines.
	I venture to suggest that one of the ways in which the Committee could help the Government is to look more broadly across the whole range of reports that we producewithin a given year, sayand make recommendations in respect of the systemic problems and weaknesses in how various management systems operate. The Government could accept that as a means of resolving such problems across Government, rather than just dealing with how those issues have affected a particular project or report. Management is a broad concept, so in talking about it I should clarify the areas of management where the PAC reports could help. Previous speakers in this debate have already touched on those areas, and they are certainly issues on which we repeatedly touch in our Committee inquiries.
	There is the question of IT. So many problems have come from how IT systems have been commissioned, implemented and subsequently managed in practice. A previous speaker mentioned commissioning and whether consultants are needed. Whether we are talking about a procurement project, the commissioning of a service or a change in how an internal Government function works, before consultants are brought in it is important for the Department to be crystal clear about what it is commissioning. It may not have the internal technical expertise to know exactly what is required, and the appropriate consultant would be expected to help on that. However if somethingparticularly something technical or complexis being procured, it is important that there should be access to people who can define the issues as accurately as possible.
	In the broader sense of project management, and particularly as far as IT is concernedsome IT systems used in government are particularly complexit is important to get the commissioning and procurement right. Before the green button is pressed and the work starts, it is important that the detail has been considered. Occasionally, I get the impression that the process is speeded up to fulfil a Government pledge or commitment related to policy. We can think of many examples, but I will not go into detail, although the Department for Work and Pensions and other such Departments have certainly produced classic examples. In many cases, it would have been better to have trialled a system for a lot longer before rolling it out more broadly, with all the problems that that involves.
	There are many reports on the tangible procurement sidenot least, as others have mentioned, involving the Ministry of Defence. It is a sorry experience to have to look repeatedly at defence procurement and see not only the money wastedthat is almost certainly one of the consequencesbut the difficulties caused for those in the field serving as military personnel when the projected procurements overrun. If such procurements overrun on time, they almost certainly overrun on budget. That goes for just about all procurement projects, whichever Department they are in. If there is a significant overrun on time, there is inevitably a significant overrun on the initial costings.
	Some of the problems could be addressed if there were not only departmental but cross-Government examination of how the Government manage projects. We see in some of the reports before us fundamental problems that, although it is easy to say so with the benefit of hindsight, could have been addressed. The so-called under-management in DEFRA has been mentioned.
	There is always somebody who is responsible for a project. I quite deliberately use the word somebody because in the case of a Government Department, it is easy to think that a particular person is not responsible. However, in any system of management, there is always somebody in chargethere is a cascade system. I would be nervous of any system or project in which one could not readily identify the person who was in charge, whatever the level at which the project was being addressed. I say to the Minister that that is a fundamental point.
	Of course, there are excellent systems in place to help with project management, but what is important is the combination of the people and the system. Even if an IT system of project management is used, one can see how under-management, and not having somebody who is known to be in charge full-time, can cause problems to everyone else in the cascade needed to deliver the project on time, probably including external agencies. I know that it is an old clich, but I remember from a previous existence that projects overrun and become late one day at a time. If there is an overrun of one or two days somewhere in the process and nobody is alert to that or does anything about it, it is easy for the project to overrun by three or four days further down the track, in which case the overrun becomes weeks then months. As we have occasionally seen in our Committee inquiries, a project can sometimes overrun by years, which can have consequences for all sorts of important things associated with the project. In particular, as far as the Committee is concerned, such overruns affect value for money for the taxpayer.
	I suggest to the Minister that at a low level within Departments, when anybody initiates a procurement, commissions a service or makes any change that requires management involvement, there seems to be a lack of anyone asking what the consequences will be for value for money. That should be at heart of projects such as commissioning and procurement, but somehow they are all done before people look at whether there has been value for money, as though that is something accidental that is bolted on right at the end. That is the wrong way to look at it.
	It is too simplistic to say that competitive tendering is, of itself, the answer. We have seen a huge lack of competitive tendering in some Departments and some projects. It is, of course, a good thing and should be done, but it does not necessarily guarantee value for money when a project is eventually delivered. All sorts of things can happen between a tender being submitted and accepted and a project's final delivery.
	There is much to learn not only for the outcome of the 14 reports, but for the Government. I hope that my colleagues on the Committee will forgive me for repeating points that I have made previously, but I find myself constantly asking permanent secretaries and others the same question. The time that elapses between the NAO producing a report, which the Government see in draft form some months previously so they have a good idea of any criticisms or recommendations for improving Government efficiency, and permanent secretaries appearing before the Committee means that they inevitably say, We've got that in hand now. We're already doing that. Occasionally, I ask, Were you doing that before you saw the NAO report or have you done it since? Sometimes, they say honestly that they have done it only since reading the NAO report and at other times, as happened on Monday, that they were already alert to the problem and were doing something about it. It is not a bad thing if an NAO report acts as a trigger for a Department to take action to improve its performance. I say to the Chairman of our Committee that perhaps we should meet every day and get the NAO to produce more reports. Perhaps Government efficiency would then improve and, in a couple of years, we would not even need NAO reports and the PAC. However, I suspect that that will not happen.
	I want to emphasise to those on the Treasury Benchand especially those in the Treasury, because they have an overview and can identify some of the systemic, recurring problems in Ministriesthat it is worrying that it sometimes takes an NAO report to flag up the reason for a problem and the possible remedy. One hopes that it would be picked up internally and that the Treasury, witnessing repeated poor management, poor systems and systemic problems across Government, would initiate some sort of oversight and consider how it could help to alleviate some of the difficulties.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady is making a series of pertinent observations, which I think stem from her experiences in government as well as on the Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps one example of the sort of approach that she suggests is the creation of the Office of Government Commerce, which did not exist 10 years ago and was established precisely because of the continuing systemic problems with procurement that kept coming up, not least in front of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. That has led to considerable improvement in the structure of procurement and, increasingly, the outcomes. I hope that that will happen more in the future.

Angela Browning: I appreciate the Exchequer Secretary's remarks, which are welcome. Being responsible for overview and able to initiate change in systems is important. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, initiating change once it has been identified is dreadfully slow.
	I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough to mention in-service training for civil servants. For a long time, schemes have existed whereby civil servants go to work in industry, and people in industry work in the civil service. That is a good idea but, by itself, it is not the answer. The PAC has been concerned about a matter that is now being rigorously addressedthe lack of accounting qualifications among senior personnel in Departments, not least among accounting officers. It seems so fundamental that one wonders why we did not realise that it was a genuine problem some years ago.
	It is perhaps wrong to blame civil servants who have been asked to carry out a specific task for which they have not got the experience and qualifications, when it all goes wrong. I am not saying for one minute that they should not be rewarded for good work or that there should not be recriminations if people foul up, as in any other walk of life. However, the Government need to look at the changing skills that are required of the civil service and incorporate more of them into the initial training, particularly for those who enter through the fast-track system and whom one hopes will later become our senior civil servants. They also need to look at in-service training to ensure that we do not ask people to do jobs for which they are not equipped. When that happens, it is not uncommon for people not to know who is in charge. I am always nervous when I look at a situation and find it hard to identify who is in charge.

Douglas Carswell: This is the first time that I have taken part in a debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, I am a new member, having only recently joined the Committee. I am extremely pleased to be on the PAC. From the short time that I have been on it, I sense that it is a Committee whose members think, act and speak foremost as Members of the legislature; only secondarily do they take account of slightly more partisan considerations.
	The work of the PAC is immensely important. The Government spend many billions of pounds and run vast public procurement contracts. Enormous quantities of our constituents' money are spent. Ensuring that that money is spent wisely and without waste is vital. The work of the Public Accounts Committee, which is to conduct, in effect, retrospective audits, is all the more important precisely because Parliament no longer does its job ofto use the quaint phraseapproving supply properly.
	Sure, we vote on estimates and Budgets and we have that ritual called Budget day, but that does not amount to proper scrutiny of how the Executive spend taxpayers' money. Indeed, it took almost a whole year for some Members of this legislature to realise fully what was in one of the Budgets when it came to 10p tax rates. This House rubber-stamps Government expenditure; we no longer control it. This House approves Executive expenditure more in theory than in practice. As I read through the list of PAC reports, I reflect on how once this House properly scrutinised how the Executive use taxpayers' money. There was once genuine scrutiny.

John Pugh: It is not my job to defend them, but to be fair to the Government, they are developing the line of sight programme, which will give greater clarity about estimates and how the Government spend money. That is surely a desirable development, which we can all support.

Douglas Carswell: Absolutely. I welcome any initiative from any part of the Housethis is a cross-party issue, not a partisan oneto ensure that this legislature is better able to hold the Executive to account on how they spend our money.
	Once upon a time there was genuine scrutiny. Indeed, as some people may know, a war was once fought over the extent to which the House was able to vote to approve supply and Government moneys. However, this House has slowly but definitely lost its power to oversee how the Executive spend our money. The quango state, on which the PAC produces so many of its reports, is in effect beyond budgetary scrutiny. Retrospective audit on the PAC is pretty much all that is left.
	Belying each PAC report and the National Audit Office reports on which we comment is a profound question: why is our legislature now so supine and spineless? Why is our legislature not able to do a better job of scrutinising how the Government spend money? Instead of conducting merely retrospective audit, why does this House not properly scrutinise forward spending proposals? The failure of this House to oversee Whitehall budgets properly makes the work of the PAC vital.
	My second point concerns what I see as a pattern in those 14 reports. The PAC produces a vast number of reports. Each week, it seems, we produce a report. Sometimes, scarcely a day goes by when I do not switch on the radio to listen to the Today programme and hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talking about one of the reports. It is great that we produce so many reports, but to what effect are they produced? We give permanent secretaries a hard time and we can huff and puff, but the waste and the catastrophically inept project management and public procurement continue.
	Let us take just one areadefence procurement. It has almost become a clich for the Public Accounts Committee to produce reports criticising such procurement that catalogue incompetence and failure, yet nothing happens. On the basis of my short time serving on the PAC, I suspect that there is a more profound reason for that failure, and it is this: when big government and big business meet, we get corporatism, and we find that taxpayers' money is siphoned off for their convenience rather than that of the taxpayer.
	If the supplier is constrained in any market, the seller is by definition allowed to set the terms of trade. I wonder whether too much of public procurement is inept and incompetent because big government restrains the number of people who can bid for the work. That applies whether we are talking about big defence procurement contracts or the Warm Front scheme: it is the same story, the same pattern of corporate government constraining supply.

Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in some circumstances of defence procurement, genuine competition actually means opening up to international competition? Is he arguing that British shipbuilding contracts, for example, should be opened up to builders from other countries? If so, that would certainly be opposed in my constituency.

Douglas Carswell: I am and always have been a staunch advocate of off-the-shelf defence procurement. I believe that we do not have a choice between spending on the building and supply of British equipment paid for by the British taxpayer in the UK or paying a little less by buying overseasultimately, it is a choice between whether we have the equipment or not. Too often we spend tax pounds on defence, which does not actually result in the equipment that our armed forces so desperately need. That is the price of protectionist procurement, and I am very much against it.

Ian Davidson: When the hon. Gentleman says that he is against protectionist procurement, is he saying, as the Liberals said on one occasion, that aircraft carriers should have been built in the United States because they were cheaper there? Is that exactly what he is saying?

Douglas Carswell: I personally believe that we could get better bang for our buck if we spent more of the 34 billion that we spend on defence on buying the best equipment for our armed forces, sourced from wherever in the world. By buying protectionist equipment, we deny our armed forces the equipment they so desperately need in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have spoken in the House before about the high price I believe our armed forces pay for that. Protectionism may be in the interests of a few corporate suppliers and a few defence contractors, but it is not in the interest of taxpayers or, ultimately, of our armed forces.

Edward Leigh: It is not just a choice between buying American and buying elsewhere. As we saw with the Chinooks, we can buying elsewhere, but what so often happens in the Ministry of Defence is that our own civil servants then gold-plate it. As a result, eight Chinooks have been sitting on the ground unused for eight years. We made the decision to buy American; let us buy off the shelf and get them flying.

Douglas Carswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If people believe that the primary purpose of the British defence budget is to create jobs in Britain, I believe that they do a disservice to our armed forces, whom we ask to make such big sacrifices on our behalf.
	I believe that in order to reform how the legislature does its job, it would be good if the Public Accounts Committee, and perhaps all Select Committees, had real power: power to censure and power to remove inept civil servants. To stay with the theme of defence procurement, if it had been possible for the PAC to recommend a P45 for the particular officials who oversaw the Chinook fiasco, I do not believe that it would have dragged on for so many years. For all the reports produced on the Chinook affair, I am not aware that a single civil servant has been fired, but I believe that some of them should have been.
	Other legislaturesgrown-up, proper legislatures, ones that are not in the pockets of the Executivehave Committees that do have the power to confirm appointments, the power to oversee budgets and the power to censure failure. I believe that we need to give Committees like the PAC and others the power to veto or ratify departmental budgets. If we did that, we would be able to do something about waste before it happened, not simply pass comment on it retrospectively. Until then, in the spirit of the television shows Yes Minister or The Thick of It, officialdom, Sir Humphrey Appleby and the civil servants will continue to run the show, however ineptly. Ministers will continue to be little more than departmental mouthpieces, occasionally even apologists. The PAC will continue to fume, huff and puff. Unless and until the House has Select Committees with the power to oversee appointments and budgets in Whitehall, we will continue to produce excellent reports, but nothing will fundamentally change.

Ian Davidson: The work of the Public Accounts Committee is immensely helpful and constructive, and we do a good job. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee, who work conscientiously at their endeavours, led by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I want to make all the usual comments about how wonderful the staff areblah, blah, blah. Everybody says these things. On occasion, we mean them. This is one of the occasions when, generally, we do.
	Before going into a couple of particular issues, I want to raise some general points. First, we need to strike the difficult balance between holding the Government to account and making partisan attacks. It is entirely possible for us to ensure that we make criticisms of the Government and how the machinery works without lapsing over into simply using those criticisms to gain party political advantage. We have not always managed that, although it is all too easy for some to see any criticism whatever of the Government as partisan and something that ought to be opposed.
	I am thinking of a colleague who was on the Committee, who took the view that any criticism of anything that had ever happened under this Government was a calumny, a foul slander and to be bitterly opposed. That Member was dealt with appropriately by the Whips Office when they were promoted, which presumably was the intention of their comments. That perhaps took things to an extreme, but it is possible to be extremist in the other direction. That means identifying every error in the Government procurement machinery as an opportunity to argue that the policy itself is invalid, inappropriate or incorrect. We must try to strike that balance.

Angela Browning: rose

Ian Davidson: The hon. Lady was not the Member to whom I referred.

Angela Browning: I would hope not. For the record, does the hon. Gentleman include within such partisanship views on the royal household?

Ian Davidson: I was going to restrict myself from that particular area. I do not take the view that attitudes to the royal household are a party political matter. While this is an immensely valuable opportunity for us to raise those matters of value for moneythose who have been paying attention may have identified my viewsI do not see the issue as central. This is just a bonus; it is like shooting fish in a barrel, like so many of the things that we do.
	Coming back to the question of managing to give criticism where it is due without lapsing into partisan disputes, the Committee has, on balance, handled that very well. In particular, I pay tribute to Opposition Members, who could easily lapse into making that mistake, and to the Chairman, who has in general managed to avoid that difficulty.
	However, we face genuine problems in how we present criticisms of the Government and the language that we use. Many of our arguments about how Government procurements or decisions have been progressed are quite complicated and in many ways quite dull. They do not provide a soundbite or a snippet, whether for the Today programme or something else. There is always a balance to be struck between being inflammatory to attract attentionif people do not do that, they do not get any coverageand being worthy and boring, and therefore not achieving very much. I am not sure that we have always got that right. We need to continue to bear that in mind.
	As well as examining the 27 million reports that we receive every week, the PAC gives us the opportunity to cover some other issues. One of my favourites has been referred to, and I am glad that it is a growing interest of some other Members, who obviously spot a dripping roast when they see one. I have also been particularly interested in the social origins of senior members of the civil service and other Government Departments. We all welcomed the information from the Ministry of Defence that the Army has the worst record in this regard, with about 90 per cent. of top generals coming from that narrow band of educational experiencepublic school, and mostly Oxbridge as well, if I remember correctly. Clearly, they do not reflect the society that they seek to defend. I have been pursuing that, and I want to make a couple of points.
	The great success of the Jobcentre Plus office network roll-out has been mentioned. I do not have the date of the Committee hearing in front of me, but I asked:
	Can you give us a note about your top 20 staff, giving an indication of how many of them were in either public school or Oxbridge or both in order that we can compare it with other departments from whom we have had information?
	The response came back:
	I have interpreted my Top 20 as my senior team at Director level...and my Customer Service Directors...who are responsible for operational delivery and the customer experiencea total of 23. Of these 23, only one was educated at Oxbridge.
	Then she says that, none the less, he is okay; I am prepared to concede that on rare occasions that may well be the case. The point has been made that people who have come through a service have a much greater knowledge of it, and because they will be there for some time, are more likely to have a commitment to its ongoing success.
	However, I also remember asking the permanent secretary to the Treasury the same question:
	May I ask how many of the top 20 officials in the Treasury are drawn from the same background as you of public school and Oxbridge?
	I also asked for a note. I got a note back, which is appended at the back of the document:
	The Treasury does not routinely hold this information for individual members of staff. Disclosure of this information is a matter for the individual concerned.
	That raises two issues, which the Minister ought to take on board. First, why does the Treasury not produce such information when other Departments have been perfectly prepared to produce it? It seems to me that if the Treasury declines to produce the information, it must feel that it has something to hide.
	Secondly, there is an issue about a permanent secretary giving a commitment to the Chairman of the Committee, and to its members, and not carrying it through. He said in the first line of his reply to my question:
	I am very happy to give you the information.
	When a permanent secretary says that in front of us, we not unreasonably expect to receive the information. It does not seem acceptable to get a reply in writing that says:
	The Treasury does not routinely hold this information for individual members of staff. Disclosure of this information is a matter for the individual concerned.
	I hope that that matter will be taken up and pursued.

John Pugh: Is not the consequence that, presumably, the Treasury employs people whose educational qualifications it does not know?

Ian Davidson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been canvassing, and sometimes it is difficult to know whether people are a don't know or a won't say. Sometimes, when they do not tell us something, we do not know whether they do not know it or just refuse to tell. It is cause for concern when those at the Treasury tell us that they will tell us, and then refuse to tell us. They have generally been more open with us on these matters. Having made the point, however, I have no desire to make too much of it I suspect that I shall return to it only three or four more times during my speech.
	Leaving aside the question of the Treasury's not replying to a question to which it swore that it would reply, I want to raise a number of other points. I remember receiving an astonishing response relating to the shared services centre being set up by the Department for Transport for the Department and its agencies. At the time when we investigated the matter, the establishment of the centre, which had originally been going to save us 57 million, was going to cost us 81 million. The Department told us that it would not actually cost us that amount, because it would take action to reduce the figure. No one was dismissed as a result; I believe that people moved on. The point has already been made about careers possibly being slightly blighted, but there was not the degree of accountability to which others have referred.
	Another issue that interested me was the NHS pay modernisation scheme, when GPs' mouths were stuffed with gold. As the debate proceeded, what was increasingly noticeable was the contrast between the extent to which partners in general practices had hoovered up as much of the available money as they thought they could possibly get away with, and the amount that they were giving to their staff. If I remember correctly, the salaried GPs received 3 per cent. increases over a period of two yearsalthough it may have been onewhile some nurses' salaries actually fell. As far as I know, those facts were not picked up anywhere else in the system.
	In the light of those examples, I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) about the need to hold the Government to account. However, some of his statements have led me to conclude that he is a true zealot when it comes to open markets. I see that he takes that as a compliment, but I have not finished my point yet. He confessed that he would be perfectly happy to see shipyard orders going abroad and believed that all British defence orders should be opened up to international competition, notwithstanding the impact that that would have on jobs in the United Kingdom. His clear expression of that view gives us some understanding of why he speaks from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench. I am quite sure that it is not the view that will be expressed shortly by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), although I will happily give way to him if he wishes to assure us otherwise.
	Answer came there none.

Douglas Carswell: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that protectionist procurement sometimes means that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq do not have the equipment that they would otherwise have, and does he consider that acceptable?

Ian Davidson: I do not believe that protectionist procurement necessarily leads to that result. All the evidence that we have received over a period in relation to urgent operational requirement contracting suggests that British defence industries can respond speedily in providing equipment when it is needed urgently by our forces in the front line, and when that has not been possible, the Government have always been perfectly willing to go abroad to pursue the very point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
	Let me give an example relating to ships, in which my constituency has an interest. I have no doubt that we would have been able to buy some of the ships that we have more cheaply had we bought them abroad, but that would have destroyed our capacity to purchase them in the United Kingdom in the future. There is always a balance to be struck between savings now and retaining capacity for the future, which is what the defence industrial strategy is all aboutbut I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman dig himself further into a hole.

Douglas Carswell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why there has been such a big increase in the use of urgent operational requirements to procure is precisely that the armed forces find that by procuring through urgent operational procurements they are free from any of the protectionist constraints inherent in the defence industrial strategy?

Ian Davidson: No, that is not my view. Most of the urgent operational requirement contracts have arisen because the armed forces are in new environments and they discover that they have urgent operational requirements for particular pieces of equipment. They did not envisage having an urgent operational requirement for a piece of equipment until they found that they needed it, otherwise it would have been in the system already. I know from provision made from plants in my constituency that the forces have been genuinely astonished about what they found they needed, as they thought they had equipment that was entirely satisfactory. As I am sure we are all aware, the stuff that is necessary for fighting on the north German plain is not necessarily the same stuff that is needed for fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan; even some of the materiel that was necessary for Iraq is not adequate for Afghanistan. Therefore, it is changes of environment that produce urgent operational requirements; I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.
	Let me return to the point about the hon. Gentleman being a zealot and joining the PAC as a member of the Tory Taliban. There is an issue to do with the extent to which Members sit on the Committee to paddle their own canoes and pursue their own private obsessionsthe extent to which they are there to judge whether a Government decision was right in the first placeand the extent to which they are there to judge whether that decision, having been made, has been implemented correctly. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has got himself on the wrong side of that balance. It is not our job as PAC members to decide whether these contracts should have been thrown open to competition across the world; it is our job to decide, the Government having made such decisions, whether a contract has been implemented as speedily, accurately and well as it should have been. I look forward to the PAC Chairman ruling the hon. Gentleman out of order on a number of occasions in future, since the Chairman's predecessor did that often enough to mein another direction, politically speaking.
	I also want to raise the issue of culturenot the kind of culture that makes me reach for my revolver, but the culture of the Departments. That was most clearly expounded when we were discussing the management of expenditure in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was revealed that the culture in some sections of the Department was always to assume that they would underspend, and that therefore they could over-order on the basis that there would then be a rough balancing-out. That is very much a case of amateur night, and is entirely indefensible. Should not the Treasury have been pursuing that, as I presume that it is the Department that supervises such matterswhen it is not covering up whether or not it knows whom it employs and what their educational qualifications and social backgrounds are? Perhaps the PAC ought to return to such questions of culture in a more systematic way. I very much welcome the fact that the Chairman has been taking us down the road of undertaking thematic explorations, in particular in relation to project management. Once we have made more progress on that, we ought to pursue the issue of changing culture.
	I shall now turn to the report, Meeting needs? The Offenders' Learning and Skills Service. It was revealed that in some policy areas there is a lack of provision and of delivery of service. We ought to have some system of passing that on to the appropriate committee. It is not our job to pursue the extent to which there continues to be a low level of literacy and numeracy among prisoners, or the extent to which the Prison Service's need to move people around the estate means that their opportunities to learn are constantly disrupted. It is perhaps our job to identify that difficulty, but I am not quite clear what the mechanism then is for the concerns that we identify and express to be passed on to someone else, and for us to be sure that they are picking them up. Select Committees focus on major issues, and relatively small issues such as that might be swept up in an overall look at the Prison Service, for example, or at adult literacy. The question of the balance between moving prisoners around the system and the education and training opportunities that we offer them does not then get picked up on. I wonder whether the Chairman of the Committee could reflect on that and provide some possible solutions for the future.
	Finally, I want to remind the House about our examination of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. We heard the long litany of what I regarded as exploitation of the system by barristers, who were clearly bleeding the system white. That reminds us that being involved with the private sector is not always a route toward enhanced efficiency. Some elements of the private sector are in many ways far more inefficient and self-serving, and far less controllable or demonstrably operating in the public interest than sections of the public sector. There is the assumption that says, Private good, public bad. Anyone who looks at the way that barristers operatesimply gouging the public sectorcannot doubt for a moment that there is a very strong argument for such sections to be examined more fully by us.

Angela Browning: In that particular case, was not the problem that the department did not get the fees agreed with barristers in advance? Rather, it waited until afterwards, without any idea of what the bill was going to be. So although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that barristers made a lot of money out of that, at the heart of the report is the view that the department was at fault.

Ian Davidson: I have some sympathy with that perspective, but it is a bit like saying that the foxes will always raid the hen coop and it is the farmer's fault if he does not fence in the chickens. If the premise is that barristers are generally thievesthat, given any opportunity, they will lift the silver, that they cannot be trusted to bill fairly, and that therefore it is the fault of the department in question if it has not nailed them down beforehandthen yes, that is fair. It is the attitude that I have always taken when we deal with farmers. As people will be aware

Edward Leigh: rose

Ian Davidson: Ahthe Chairman wants to intervene.

Edward Leigh: If barristers are generally thieves, then I am a very poor thief.

Ian Davidson: I have nothing to add to that point.
	Farmers, as we are well aware, are rapacious and will take anything that is not nailed down, so it is absolutely correct that to some extent, it is the fault of Government if they ever allow them to get away with the money. However, I cannot help but think that we ought to be blaming those who try to commit the theft, rather than those who have perhaps inadequately prevented them from doing it.
	I have, as ever, enjoyed my time on the Public Accounts Committee. If only I did not have constituents, I could spend much more time looking after its affairs, and I look forward to continuing under the chairmanship of my esteemed colleague.

Richard Bacon: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), who is one of the most fearless of our interrogators, and sometimes one of the funniest of our members. I regret that the name of his constituency changed from Glasgow, Pollok to Glasgow, South-West because we always liked saying Glasgow, Pollok. I know little about his constituency except that I am fairly sure he has very few barristers as constituents

Angela Browning: Or farmers.

Richard Bacon: And very few farmers

Edward Leigh: Or members of the royal family.

Richard Bacon: Indeed. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West did not actually say just now that all farmers are thieves, but I have heard him say that before; and he did say on the record that barristers are thieves.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the right balance had to be struck between talking about reports to the Committee in a way that was not too party political and getting enough attention paid to the issue. It is something I am aware of every time I broadcast on the Committee's work. If I am being critical, I try to be critical of the Department concerned. The hon. Gentleman used the word dull, and one tries to make comments sound non-party political. I go out of my way to avoid ever using the phrase the Labour party when I am broadcasting about Committee matters, because that would simply be inappropriate. Were there to be a change of Government at some point, which is possible, I hope that the same thing would apply if the hon. Gentleman were broadcasting in that way as an Opposition Member.
	In the same spirit, there might be occasions when the hon. Gentleman should think about tempering his words. I represent a lot of farmers, and they are not all rapacious. He will remember the National Audit Office report, and our Committee report, on the case of Joseph Bowden. He was a farmer claiming money under the arable area payments scheme and the fibre flax scheme for territoriesI use that word advisedlythat on closer examination, when one used the entire grid reference rather than part of it, which is all the form had required him to fill in, turned out in one case to be in the North sea between Scotland and Denmark and, in another, to be on the mainland of Greenland. That fraud was brought to the attention of the authorities, not because of the diligence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it then was, but because of another farmer who realised what was going on and thought that something was odd.
	I also regret that the Committee only narrowly failed to pass a resolution when we had the Duke of Westminster in front of us, as the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, requiring the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West to address him as Your grace each time he spoke to him, but that is, unfortunately, now water under the bridge.
	I wondered which of the various reports I should focus on. I started the day reeling under the impact of the National Offender Management Service information system report published by the NAO. Although that report is outside the scope of this debate, as we have not even had a hearing on it, many of its themes are relevant not only to the reports before us today, but to the Committee's work in general. The National Audit Office, together with the Office of Government Commerce, agreed in 2002 a list of eight of the most common causes of project failure. The first was the lack of a clear link between the projectwhatever it wasand the organisation's key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success. The second was a lack of clear senior management and ministerial ownership and leadershipwe certainly saw that in the case of the Rural Payments Agency, and in that of the shared services report from the Department for Transport. The third was a lack of effective engagement with stakeholderswe have seen that in many reports. The fourth was a lack of skills and a proven approach to project management and risk management. The fifth was too little attention to breaking down the development and implementation of projects into manageable steps. The sixth was that the evolution of proposals were driven by the initial price, rather than by considerations of longer-term value for money, especially the delivery of business benefits. The seventh was a lack of understanding of and contact with the supply industry at senior levels of the organisation, and the eighth was a lack of an effective project team working with the clients, supply team and supply chain.
	The report published this morning happened to touch on almost all those factors, in full or in part, but they are common themes we see again and again in different reports. One thing that I hope the Minister will find time to do is to address the role of the Office of Government Commerce in scrutinising and challenging the management of Government projects and in ensuring that Departments are steering projects properly, because I do not think that there is nearly enough evidence to convince us that the system is working properly. The OGC gives advice, for sure, but time and again that advice is put to one side or ignored.
	The Minister will know that applications to the fast track of the civil service are up 30 per cent., which is good news for the civil service. It is unsurprising that that should be the case in these straitened financial times. It gives the civil service a better choice from among those talented graduates, and that is good news. However, I want to know what the civil service is doing at the centre to ensure that the principles of project management and risk managementall the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West described as being seen to be rather dull in some cases, but which are incredibly important for the successful delivery of projectsare tattooed on the eyelids of new entrants to the civil service so that they understand as they join that effective project management and focusing on outcomes are important from that moment on. They need to understand that the civil service is not only about policy advice but, as the Committee Chairman said earlier, about successfully delivering projects. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
	Our report on the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus speaks on that theme. As was mentioned earlier, the key staff included Mrs. Lesley Strathie, who is now chief executive of HMRC and who started as a clerical assistant in 1974. I was very pleased, as it was a point that I made in the Committee, that one of the recommendations of our report noted the need to focus on the fact that key leadership roles should be taken by people with significant front-line experience who had started at the bottom. The three witnesses had a total of 112 years of experience between them, and because they had started at the bottom, as the poor bloody infantry, they were going to ensure that no project was imposed in a way that could not work at grass-roots level. That was welcome.
	That goes back to the Fulton report and the way its proposals were eventually defeated by William Armstrong, who was then head of the civil service, ensuring that the generalist stream of the civil service remained on top. That has been a 30 or 40-year failure across successive Governments, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on it. I think we are now getting a little more expertise. I always read the CVs of our witnesses, and more and more of them come from the private sector, or have at least some private sector background, which is interesting. They also seem to have genuine expertise in the subject that they are appearing before us to discuss. That is most welcome, but I would like to know what that says about fast-track entry and how it will be integrated into the recruitment process for the future.
	I also wanted to make a point about the report on the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. David Green, QC, was hired to be director of the prosecutions office, not because he had management experience or knew how to run a budget or how to procure and deliver an IT system, but because he was one of the leading criminal barristers in this country specialising in Revenue work. That was an ideal background for somebody to become director of the Revenue and Customs prosecutions office. He is a leading silk in his area, but that does not mean that the Treasury or civil service, in giving him the responsibilities of an accounting officer, which include ensuring that there is probity in the use of public money and that the proper systems are in place, can assume that a man who is extremely talented in his field will have the requisite expertise in what one might call general management. I asked Mr. Green whether he was familiar with the Treasury document on the responsibilities of an accounting officer, and he said that he had been given it and that he had been on a training course. I asked how long the training course had lasted, and he said, Half a day.
	I think I am right in saying that the Treasury minute in response to the report acknowledges that more must be done for people from different backgrounds who come in as accounting officers. I am glad that that recommendation has been made, although it is slightly worrying that it was necessary. Perhaps it is a consequence of the fact that more people from different backgrounds are coming in from outside the civil service, but it is something that it is important to bear in mind.
	Finally, I want to focus on the comments made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the use of consultants. A lot of flannel is talked about this subject. I have an interest, in that many years agoin the mid-1990s, when there was a Conservative GovernmentI was employed for two years by the trade body representing the consulting industry. I remember someone who worked for one of our member firms saying that he was looking forward to a Labour Government being elected, because that would mean more work for consultants. I asked why that would be, and was told that consultants always get more work whenever there is change. Of course, there has been a great deal more work for consultants since then.
	The public sector needs to be very careful about when it uses consultants. Of course, consultants have been used for a variety of purposes in many of the reports before us. We should not dismiss the possibility of using them, but nor should we assume that we must use them.
	There are three classic reasons for using consultantsfirst, because they have an expertise unavailable elsewhere: secondly, because a temporary shortage needs to be filled on an interim basis; and thirdly, because an independent view is required. Those three reasons always apply in the commercial or private sector, but in the public sector one would hope that the independent view came more often from the civil service. However, the knee-jerk tendency that emerged under the previous Conservative Government, and which has continued under this Government, is to reach for consultants. That is because they provide an external and apparently independent endorsement of something that Ministers do not have the confidence to take forward solely on the basis of civil service advice.
	Ministers use consultants for another reasondoing so allows them to say publicly, Well, this is what KPMG has said, as though what KPMG says were a mantra that cannot be disproved. We must be very careful about that, but we must also recognise that there are plenty of occasionsand I mentioned the building of motorwayswhen one would want to employ someone on a temporary rather than permanent basis. When we do that, however, we must make sure that the proper skills are transferred.
	Although I do not go quite as far as my Taliban Friend the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) in the use of ideological language about the corporate state, I have a sneaking sympathy for some of what he said about the use of big firms.
	I met representatives of Microsoft this morning. It is a very big firm, but I was surprised and interested to hear that its representatives were worried about the failure of the public sector to hire small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the IT sector. Because of what it does and supplies, Microsoft gets a lot of business from small and medium-sized entrepreneurial companies that use their products to develop other things for the public sector.
	One point made to me was that the Government are not very good at using SMEs, especially in the IT area, even though they may have fantastic products offering technically advanced solutions and often very good value for money. I know that the Government are aware of that, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on what more can be done.
	I fully accept that there may not always be an alternative to using a big consultancy firm like KPMG or PricewaterhouseCoopers to deliver a big project, and projects set up by the Department for Work and Pensions would be a classic example of that. In the negotiations that have to take place, a big company can tell the Government that it is able to put 1,000 people on the project, with the result that civil servants are reassured that it has the necessary clout.
	However, it seems to meand this is where I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwichthat the other side of the coin is that the big firm has 1,000 people on its payroll whom it has to put on a job somewhere. There is almost a kind of oligopoly at work, and if we are not careful it can shut out the smaller and more agile suppliers that may be able to provide taxpayers with much better value for money.

Angela Eagle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have accepted all the recommendations in the Glover report, which was published at the time of the last Budget. They are well on the way to being put into effect, and we hope that all of them will be adopted by the beginning of next year. That should make access to the large amounts of Government procurement that arise every year much easier and simpler for SMEs.

Richard Bacon: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention; it is good that she has put that on the record. Of course, the Government are aware of the problem, but a series of steps needs to be taken between being aware of the problem and ensuring that it is solved on the ground.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Microsoft. He will be aware of course that, in the Building Schools for the Future programme, small to medium-sized enterprisesIT companieshad grave difficulty getting a look in, whereas Microsoft has got its feet well under the table. So I hope that he will not take its protestations too seriously.

Richard Bacon: When anyone comes to see us, we naturally think that they will have a vested interest. I am reminded of the diaries of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which were published yesterday and in which he said that one of his first steps was to see no vested interests of any kind when he became a junior Minister. That did not last. Richard Branson wrote to the Prime Minister and was passed on to the Foreign Secretary, and when the issue was finally passed to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, he felt unable to say no to meeting Mr. Branson.
	Of course, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) is right. All companies have their own commercial interests, and it is quite right that they do their best to protect them. He mentioned Building Schools for the Future, which raises another issue about consultancy, on which I will finish. We had that hearing only a few months ago, so the issue is not yet before us in a Treasury minute. The average salary of the employees of Building Schools for the Future is 85,000, which is pretty high. It has 111 employees. Hon. Members might think that the reason why they have high salariesindeed, this is the reason givenis that they are all specialists and therefore such salaries are needed to attract them.
	The permanent secretary said that there is a market in such things. Perhaps he is rightone assumes that he isbut people might assume that, if there were a lot of in-house expertise, consultants would not be used so much. Yet since that body has been established, it has spent nearly 6 million on consultancy. In the past year alone, it has spent 750,000 on consultants and, when asked about that, those involved said, Oh, that's mostly for lawyers. Why are the schemes so complex that people cannot bid for them without enormously thick contracts? The average cost of bidding for a Building Schools for the Future contract is about 1 million, which, admittedly, is a lot less than the cost of bidding for a PFI hospital, at 11 million, but that goes back to the point about oligopolypeople are possibly being shut out, and the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, must always be aware of that.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I invite you to advise the House on the fact that one of the written statements listed on the Order Paper is on Ministers' interests and that, whereas all other written statements are available in the Library, the one on Ministers' interests is not, yet it is all over the  Evening Standard? Why is it that the Government, saying that there will be written statements, are prepared to brief the press but not to tell the House, as the Order Paper suggests they should?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was unaware of that situation until the hon. Gentleman raised it, so I cannot afford him an instant explanation, but it would certainly be usual for all written ministerial statements to be placed in the Library. I can only imagine therefore that there has been a slip-up on this occasion, which has been put on the record, and I hope that it will corrected at the earliest possible moment.

Greg Hands: It is a great pleasure to respond to this afternoon's debate, which has been of extremely high quality, and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee and its scrutiny of public finances. The debate has provided ample evidence of the value of that work, which is spread across a pretty dauntingly wide field, as shown by the reports. It has also provided an opportunity to hear from its estimable Chairmanmy hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)whose opening remarks provided an impressive analysis of the lessons to be learned from the reports.
	Let us be in no doubt about the value of our Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, it has become a model for many other Parliaments that follow the British system. I have visited in recent years the legislatures of countries such as Nigeria and Ghana, both of which are very proud of their public accounts committees. Many Commonwealth countries have sought to adapt their parliamentary systems over time. Nigeria, for example, has moved to a presidential model, with a Senate and a House, and Ghana has introduced primary elections and a President. However, both proudly retained their public accounts committees. In the Nigerian Senate, the public accounts committee there ranks after only a very busy ethics committee.
	When I was in Ghana last month, I gave a training course to the excellent centre-right party, the New Patriotic party, which has just entered opposition after eight years in government. Ghana is now setting the pace for Africa, having made a second transition from one democratically elected Government to another. During my training course, I asked the assembled new MPs whether they could list the benefits of being in opposition, and one of the very first responses was, Now at least we control the public accounts committee. That goes to show to what extent our Westminster Committee has provided the model for many public accounts committees across the world. It is the model for similar committees in Canada, India, Hong Kong and other countries.
	In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough set the debate in its proper context. The Government's fiscal position is precarious and worsening. It is imperative that we find better and more efficient ways to provide public services if, as he said, the expectations of those who fund and use them are to be met. I noted with interest his appeal for revolution. He may not think of himself as a predictable revolutionary, but I can think of few more agreeable companions on the barricades come the reforms ahead. He was right to acknowledge that some good work is already being done by the Government on some of the issues that have been raised, if not nearly enough and not always at the pace that we would like.
	There is a danger in these debatesand, I am sure, in the work of the Committeethat we focus only on the bad practice that emerges from the pages of the Committee's reports, and ignore achievements and progress; that point was well made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). He was right to say that Committee members should not be afraid to hold the Government to account; that is different from making a partisan attack. That sums up the attitude of the Committee. If I may say so, the Select Committee on which I sitthe European Scrutiny Committee, which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)follows a similar approach. The Committee's criticism and probing is not necessarily taken as a partisan attack.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) drew on her experience as a Minister and a member of the Public Accounts Committee in highlighting how slow and complex decision making can be in government. She urged that at the very beginning of the process, particularly for some contracts, someone should ask, Is this value for money? That is extremely important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) made a characteristically radical and questioning speech. It questioned both Government procedures and the workings of the Public Accounts Committee. I expect him to call, before too long, for a value-for-money study of the Public Accounts Committee itself, such is his dedication to small government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) followed a more thematic approach, and notably considered the role of the Office of Government Commerce in steering projects through once they are approved. Again, he focused on IT projects and the Government's pretty poor record in delivering on them.
	One particular theme that emerges from the debate is that Government Departments need to elevate purpose over process. Too often, the best way to achieve a result is left unexamined, and talented people are forced to muddle on in the way that the departmental bureaucracy prescribes. That is not efficient, and it does not give value for taxpayers' money. The lesson of the Committee's work is that there is far more value to be had for our money than we are getting at present.
	I should like to mention individual reports. I hope that I will be forgiven for turning first to those that relate directly to the work of the Treasury. One of them is Managing financial resources to deliver better public services; it is one of those slightly vague-sounding titles, but I found it particularly fascinating. I thought it staggering that 60 per cent. of Departments do not automatically include a full financial appraisal when producing policy proposals for Ministers and board members. Worse, as other hon. Members have mentioned, only 20 per cent. of Departments produced a thorough assessment of the financial implications of a policy at the time when Ministers are asked to take a decision. The Committee report is surely right to suggest that that should be obligatory if Ministers and board members are to assess value for money. I am pleased that the Government have accepted that recommendation.
	We also learn that half of all boards are not getting information in a form that they can use. The Government indicate only that joint financial and performance information will be provided to a greater extent. I shall be interested to hear the Minister expand on that point in her response to the debate.
	Despite resource management improving, it is troubling that so many Departments are not getting proper value out of their balance sheets, and that 19 per cent. rate themselves as very weak in that area. The Government need to do more to ensure that failing programmes are not allowed to stagger on consuming funds, but are wound up promptly and efficiently instead.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough on a notable success that the Committee has had under his chairmanship. I refer to his campaign to make sure that all finance directors are financially qualified. I understand that fewer than half had a relevant qualification when he began raising the issue five years ago, but that now we are approaching 100 per cent. That is robust common sense, and I hope the Committee has equal success with its recommendations for adequate financial training for other staff as well.
	When it comes to managing financial resources to deliver better public services, the Government could learn an awful lot from best practice elsewhere, and perhaps they are already doing so. A few weeks ago, the Minister for Local Government came to see me and Hammersmith and Fulham council in our town hall to learn more about how the council manages its finances.
	The House will know that the council has cut its council tax take by 3 per cent. in each of three years, providing an average saving of 700 per resident, compared with the situation that would have pertained if the council had continued increasing the tax take at the same rate that it inherited. What the House might not know is that the council has managed to reduce its work force by some 18 per cent. in three years through efficient management and the contracting out of services. I do not believe that a single employee has been sacked, other than a set of political advisers. I am sure that if the PAC were constitutionally able to do so, it would benefit from receiving the same presentation, as would Treasury Ministers.
	At the same time, the Audit Commission has increased the rating for my council's services to a maximum 4 stars in its comprehensive performance assessment, and resident satisfaction with council services has increased from 53 per cent. to 64 per cent. in just two years. That shows that it is perfectly possible to get more while spending less.
	On the subject of PFI projects, the ground has, of course, shifted somewhat since the Public Accounts Committee produced its recommendations, given the Government bail-out of projects in recent weeks. I am not sure whether I understood the points made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) when he described PFI as outdoor relief for capitalism. A number of Committee members made various points about the report, including the Chairman about the lack of financial expertise on PFI projects and the ongoing discipline in monitoring the deal during the life of the project, which is so necessary.
	With reference to the Committee's excellent report, I was particularly struck by the number of projects that were not subject to competitive tendering. Only 29 per cent. of the projects worth more than 100,000 were tendered, and I would be interested to hear in the Government's response whether and how they will seek to raise that percentage.
	A number of Members mentioned the report on DEFRA. I found the lack of expenditure controls in DEFRA pretty frightening. The point was mentioned by the Chairman and by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Glasgow, South-West. The findings were that the Department had poor contingency planning and an absence of a culture of tight financial management. Moreover, the Department has had budget problems for two years running, and little seems to have been rectified since the 2006-07 budget outturn. The Committee also pointed to an unwillingness to tackle budgetary problems within the Department's management board. This is pretty damning stuff, and again I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether DEFRA has corrected those faults.
	On the Jobcentre Plus network report, all hon. Members have been affected by the closure programme. Many of us, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, initially found it odd that the Government decided to close half of the country's jobcentres at a time of rising unemployment. The national claimant count in January was some 1.97 million, up 483,000 on the year before. The claimant count in my constituency has risen as fast as the national average, even though I already represented more unemployed people than any other Conservative MP. Locally, the number of claimants has risen from 1,974 to 2,572up 30 per cent. in just one year.
	As highlighted by the Chairman and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), the Committee has shown its worth on the restructuring of the Jobcentre Plus network by giving praise where praise is due. It seems that the whole project is delivering savings of about 135 million a year, although its break-even point will not be reached until 2012-13. Nevertheless, I would welcome from the Minister her views on the lessons to be learned from the positive aspects of the project and how they might be applied to other rationalisations in future.
	The final report that I wanted to highlight is about shared services in transport. That has made for less happy reading. The Chairman said that it was one of the worst cases of project management that he had ever seen. He highlighted its almost comical failings, one being that the new IT system started to communicate in German. Although it is a transport project with German content, it did not offer us any kind of Vorsprung durch Technika point also highlighted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West. The project has been a monumental failure at a cost of 80 million. Nearly a year after the scheme was supposed to be operational, it is still not functioning properly. The 80 million wasted could have made a nice starting contribution towards building a high-speed rail network, for example. I know that that would be welcomed by my constituents, among many others.
	To conclude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, the Committee is looking for more bang for the buck. Especially given our massive public deficit100 billion or more, and risingwe desperately need more careful control over our public finances. My hon. Friend said that we must be vigilant in guarding against waste, that spending taxpayers' money is what Governments doprobably never more so than under this Governmentand that spending money is the easiest thing in the world, but getting something practical for it is harder.
	I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee and look forward to reading and commenting on, and perhaps even responding to, its reports in the future.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to respond to what has been, in the tradition of the debates that we have here, a wide-ranging, extremely interesting and beneficial debate on the important work of the Public Accounts Committee.
	I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) compared to Marie Antoinette; I would not have thought of her, if somebody had asked me to think of the historical figure of whom the hon. Gentleman most reminds meI am trying to get the picture of him in a beautiful ball-gown out of my head. On beautiful ball-gowns, I noted a little item in the newspapers recently about the hon. Gentleman's trip to the Republican national convention. Following Sarah Palin's inaugural address ahead of her run for the US vice-presidency, the hon. Gentleman wrote in his journal that he felt absolutely reinvigorated by what she had said and that he was looking forward to a positive response to his invitation to her to address the Cornerstone group, but it looks as though he has been disappointed. Perhaps he can call yet another Public Accounts Committee meeting to cover his disappointment at her non-arrival.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of points, one of which I shall turn to soon, but first it is important to acknowledge the broad range and wide diversity of the subjects that he and his Committee members cover. Hon. Members of both parties have been quick to draw systemic lessons from some of the failures that have occurred in the use of public money. However, it is increasingly welcome that Committee members are willing to congratulate Departments that do a good job and produce something worth while, along with producing the more traditionalin some ways perhaps more enjoyablereports that demonstrate where things have gone badly wrong.
	In the battle to get maximum value out of public money, we all share the same aim. It is important that we highlight and reward good practice in debates such as this as well as pointing out where things have gone wrong. That gives Departments a much greater incentive to do well and makes them more likely to try new things without being too defensive in the battle to get value for public money.
	On the Committee's 57th report, the hon. Gentleman and many other Members asked whether any officials had suffered any detriment as a result of what happened in the shared services project and the propensity of the IT to converse in German. I understand that some officials were dismissed. Hon. Members expressed doubt that that happened, but I will ask the appropriate Minister to write in more detail about the aftermath of the pretty sorry tale covered by the 57th report.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made a characteristically enjoyable speech. He ran through a range of issues, including the current matter of the Valuation Office Agency and its port ratings. He made a rather overblownand, he admitted, personalestimate of 70 billion as the amount of consultants' fees paid. I was happy to tell him that the figure actually fell by 31 per cent. to 903 million of Government spend this year.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) commented, as an ex-consultant, that not all consultancy spending is bad and that some of it can in fact be very productive. He made the accurate comment that consultants are sometimes engaged out of confidence and a well focused approach to procurement and project management, and sometimes as a crutch to shore up confidence in a rather false way. It is important that we continue to make progress on the use of consultants and ensure that they are used appropriately and because they are needed.
	The Office of Government Commerce has established a consultancy value programme, which is a cross-departmental, collaborative programme aimed at deriving greater value from our use of consultants. We have also implemented the recommendations of the National Audit Office and the Committee on the matter. That is one of the ways in which we have managed to achieve that 31 per cent. decline in consultancy spend. I trust and believe that because we have developed a standardised business case process, those approving consultancy spend can be assured that it is adding value. We have also introduced schemes such as skills transfer to ensure that there is not an unhealthy reliance on the expertise of consultants. I therefore feel that we are in a much better situation in that regard than we were a few years ago.

Greg Hands: The Exchequer Secretary has mentioned 31 per cent. twice. Does that represent a decrease from a recent high or a decline over the course of the Government's tenure? Expenditure on consultants has dramatically increased since 1997. [Official Report, 1 April 2009, Vol. 490, c. 8MC.]

Angela Eagle: The figure relates to the last Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office report on the matter, which was published in 2001-02. I make that clear so that hon. Members are not under the wrong impression.

Richard Bacon: The organisation that we are consideringnamely, UK Governmentspends 600 billion in total. Of that, they spend 2.5 billion to 3 billion0.5 per cent.on consultancy, which is less than many private organisations and certainly less than FTSE 100 companies. They probably spend considerably more than 0.5 per cent. on what one might call outside help. We should stop banging on about consultancy in an ill-informed way and try to analyse some of the problems with the management, procurement and purchasing of consultancy to ensure that what is bought is worth while, and that, if it is not worth while, we do not buy it.

Angela Eagle: I am not going to argue for more consultants from the Dispatch Box, but we should use consultancy services in government, when appropriate, and ensure that, if we use them, we get the best value from them and that they are not used as a sort of prop to allay individual project directors' worries about whether they are doing the right thing. That is all we can do from the centre, and, to be fair, the consultancy value programme, which is driven by the Office of Government Commerce, has been doing that. I hope that that will create a position whereby we can be much more confident that consultancy spend is undertaken for the right reasons.
	Some of the hysterical media coverage that we get, which assumes that any amount of consultancy spend is wrong and a waste of money, is not helpful in fostering circumstances in which those responsible for introducing consultancy work feel that they can do it without being subject to public criticism. For example, the recent screaming and inaccurate headlines in the  Daily Mail about 7 billion a year spent on consultancy firms were unhelpful. I therefore agree with the comments of the hon. Member for South Norfolk about the matter.
	A theme of the debates is that the Committee's considered recommendations about procurement, project management and delays in introducing IT systems have not been implemented and that, consequently, Departments repeat the same mistakes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) made that point with some frustration in an intervention, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) returned to the matter more than once in her contribution. It is a source of frustration to anyone who has been involved in that aspect of parliamentary scrutiny, including me as a member of the PAC when in opposition and now on the Treasury Bench. There must be a way in which to ensure that best practice is spread more effectively and appropriate lessons are learned. Again, that is a matter of training, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
	The hon. Lady also asked about skills training for the civil service. The civil service has the Professional Skills for Government programme, which gives high quality training and is tailored, when appropriate, to provide procurement and project management skills to ensure the availability of the skills needed to deliver good value for money for public services. Again, the hon. Member for South Norfolk made similar comments, which I endorse.
	On good practice, I was pleased to read the Committee's report on prison procurement, which was published only two days ago. The report demonstrated that the Prison Service has managed to implement a new strategy for procurement following a critical report from the Committee in 2003. The service has introduced a centralised and professionalised procurement team supported by five regional procurement teams in a new information technology system that was successfully phased in and that worked when it was turned on. As far I can tell, the system did not communicate in German or any other language apart from English.
	As a direct result of the Prison Service responding to the Committee's wide-ranging representations, the quality of goods and services procured has improved and 120 million in cash has been saved over five years. I welcome the praise that the hon. Member for Gainsborough lavished on that example of successful change management. He is often on the radio criticising, and quite rightly, but it is important that he also gives praise where praise is due, and in this instance it certainly is due. I understand that the Prison Service procurement model is to be used throughout the Ministry of Justice, with the prospect of further savings. It is precisely that kind of positive approach and successful implementation that we want to spread throughout government at all levels.
	That news also comes on the back of the positive report on Jobcentre Plus. That report was much commented on by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, particularly with respect to the observation that those who were responsible for implementing the successful changes in Jobcentre Plus had behind them a lot of operational experience at the front line, which they brought to bear on the decisions that they made. That observation should not go unnoticed by senior managers in the civil service as they contemplate what works and what is likely to increase the chances of success in any change project.

Richard Bacon: I am delighted to hear the Minister say that that observation should not go unnoticed by senior managers. What will the Treasury and the Cabinet Office do at the centre to ensure both that notice is taken of it across the service and that active steps are taken to spot people with talent who have not come up through the fast-stream route?

Angela Eagle: I agree that that is precisely what needs to happen. At the suggestion of hon. Members at the previous occasion when we held this debate, I agreed to write to every permanent secretary asking them to look at the Committee's report on Jobcentre Plus and act accordingly. That is the kind of thing that I can do as a Minister who is not directly responsible for day-to-day management decisions in a Department. I also know that there is a great deal of awareness at the permanent secretary level of the success that has been enjoyed in this instance.
	I want to respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) asked about the out-of-hours contract and the Hegelian dialectic. We had revolution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and an Hegelian synthesis from the hon. Member for Southport. As always, this is an interesting time to debate the Public Accounts Committee's reports, and we are even adding a dash of philosophy just to keep ourselves more interested. The hon. Gentleman asked about the out-of-hours contract. He is right that the new contract initially pushed up GPs' pay, but since then costs have been held back to achieve compensatory savings. More importantly, Health Ministers now have much better control of doctors' pay. They commission services and get what they pay for, which is value for public money. Despite a wobbly start, the overall impact of the changes has been positive, now that there have been further shifts.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) as a new member of the Committee. He has been called a zealot by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). The hon. Member for Harwich expresses himself with a great deal of ideological certainty and belief. I am sure there will be many vigorous debates and moments of conflict and clash on a Committee that is not usually known for that kind of approach. I know that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy his time on the Public Accounts Committee, as those of us who have been fortunate enough to serve on it in the past inevitably do. I welcome him for the first time to these debates and I certainly hope that it will not be the last time he contributes to our debates as provocatively as he wishes to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West commented on the number of senior Treasury civil servants who have Oxbridge and public school backgrounds. I have to admit that I do not know the answer. I was interested in what my hon. Friend had to say about it and I will look further into the responses he received to his letter and see whether we can get him a more forthcoming one.  [Interruption.] I was just about to say that it should not be assumed that just because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West has a particular view of people with public school or indeed Oxbridge backgrounds, there must be something wrong with those people. Speaking as an ex-member of St. John's college, Oxfordactually, I am sure that one is a member of St. John's for lifeI certainly have many happy memories of it.  [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) does, too, but perhaps the less said about that the better!
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West raised two further points. He asked about the 40th report, which is on the management of expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that since the report was published, we have seen systematic monthly reporting of the Department's financial position to the management board and a new system of portfolio management through senior responsible owners of programmes. There is a refreshed financial management improvement project, which is delivering more effective and focused financial management across DEFRA, including of relationships with the delivery agents. Many might think that that should have been in place as a matter of course, but we can at least be relieved that it is in place now.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the report on the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. He is right that the system as described was open to exploitation. He did not complete the story, however, as the accounting officer has instituted a new system of control and achieved enormous improvements in efficiency in respect of public spending since that difficult start, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also mentioned.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk asked about the Fulton report and the appropriate balance between generalist and operational effectiveness and experience in the civil service. I suspect that this is a slightly less class-confrontational way of getting at the same issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West in his efforts to find out the educational background and experience of top-flight civil servants. As change management and the experience of delivering change in already complex existing organisations goes higher up the scale in terms of the Government's requirements, it becomes increasingly important for senior civil servants responsible for managing Departments in new and fresher ways to look into this balance. The hon. Member for South Norfolk has hit on an issue that ought to be thought about a great deal more than perhaps it has been. Settlements such as Fulton and Northcote-Trevelyanwhich is another, even older onestill influence the civil service. We need to look at all those things in the light of the 21st century, rather than the 19th. He makes perfectly reasonable observations.
	I want to say a few things about some of the more technical issues that have been mentioned, perhaps in passing. I am happy to announce that the last piece of the jigsaw in the Government implementing our response to Lord Sharman's report on audit and accountability in central Government is now in place. Hon. Members will be aware that, until recently, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not eligible to audit non-departmental public body companies, but provisions in the Companies Act 2006 clear the way for him to do so with effect from financial year 2008-09. There are separate provisions for profit-making and non-profit-making companies, but happily they are now in place.
	The Comptroller and Auditor General now has public audit responsibility for 26 non-profit-making NDPB companies. I understand that 24 companies, which are either profit making or have profit-making subsidiaries, have also agreed to come under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit purposes.
	I share the Committee's disappointmentthis is a point that the Chairman of the Committee brought to our attention in his opening commentsthat the implementation of the new governance arrangements for the National Audit Office has been delayed, along with the constitutional renewal Bill. However, the Public Accounts Commission has seen the draft provisions in near final form and the Treasury is ready to proceed as soon as a decision is taken on the Bill's timing.
	I welcome other progress in this area, such as the appointment of Sir Andrew Likierman as the new chair of the National Audit Office and of Mr. Amyas Morse as the new Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Gainsborough told us about the selection panel, which he chaired, and expressed his confidence in the choice that has been made. The formal appointment of Mr. Morse will follow, through a motion in Parliament. I am glad that he can take up his appointment on 1 June.
	I was interested to read the transcript of the first ever pre-appointment hearing that the Committee has held. The Committee gauged Mr. Morse's views on a wide range of issues. I note that he has ambitions for the NAO in improving the efficiency, cost efficiency and functional efficiency of government. We share those ambitions and I welcome the fact that Mr. Morse wants to work with Departments and the Treasury to progress that. Progress and a push from the NAO, as well as from the Treasury, have a good record in achieving change, which we all wish to see.
	Our Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, explained that the Government would simplify our reporting to Parliament by bringing together the processes for planning, parliamentary approval and reporting of public spending on a more consistent basis. I hope that that responds to some of the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Harwich, and it recognises the point made by the hon. Member for Southport about what are known as the clear line of sight changes, or the alignment review.
	We made it clear that the Government would consult widely on the detailed changes needed to implement what is a major reform of parliamentary scrutiny, which is designed to make the system of Government finance easier to understand and operate, and to improve Government accountability to the House.
	On 28 February, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and the Chairs of a number of other House Committees, drawing their attention to the parliamentary memorandumwhich was published on 5 March as a Command Paper, Cm. 7567setting out our formal proposals for achieving better alignment between budgets, estimates and accounts.
	The proposals in the memorandum will result in a simpler system, with a single set of numbers, which is more transparent, more comprehensive and easier to use. It will improve public debate and understanding through enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of Government. I believe that the proposals are fully consistent with Parliament's wishes. We would welcome Parliament's agreement to the detailed proposal by the summer recess, so that we can start implementing the new arrangements from 2010-11.
	In closing, I again pay tribute to the work of the Committee, which proves its value every time it sits, and demonstrates its value in these debates. On behalf of the Government, I also thank Tim Burr, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough quite properly did in his opening remarks. Mr. Burr has displayed impressive abilities as Comptroller and Auditor General, not least because he took on the role on an interim basis pending the appointment of a successor. He commands the respect of the Government, and all in the House, as he has guided and led the National Audit Office through that period of transition. We need the National Audit Office to hold the Government to account, and Mr. Burr is courageous in ensuring that that continues. I wish him well for the future.
	We all know that the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee together provide a valuable public service. We have seen evidence of that again today, if we doubted it. Improvements have been made, and as always in this continuous revolutionto use the words of the Committee Chairmanthere is scope for even more improvement. I hope and believe that we will see that in future.

Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to spend three or four minutes thanking all those who have taken part in what has been a good debate. It is always pleasant to take a three-hour break from the normal partisanship of the House, and try to get to grips in a completely non-partisan waynot mentioning the political debate at allwith how the public sector works.
	I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the Back-Bench debate, which was opened by my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He is such an honest man that when he came forth with a figure and it was proved wrong, he just admitted that it was his own concoction. I wish we were all so honest when we made mistakes in this place. He made a serious point that the trouble with Whitehall is that there is no settled culturenot just continuous policy changes, but a continuous driving through of Gershon, which makes it difficult to get to grips with efficiency savings. His wise words should be remembered.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is a valued member of the Committee, made one of the great understatements of the yearthat public servants lack the incentive of private citizens in husbanding resources. You can say that again. We do our best to try to help public servants to be just as good as private citizens in husbanding resources. His wise words about the GP contract will be engraved in the heart of any future Government in dealing with a powerful public sector trade union, which is all that the British Medical Association is.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) for her contribution. She made an important point about the problem of change continually recurring, and project management. We have made a difference, as the Exchequer Secretary mentioned, in trying to ensure that all finance directors are professionally qualified. I have tried to make the focus on project management a theme of my chairmanship. I believe that so many of our mistakes are made because we drive through change too quickly. I say to the Exchequer Secretary that we try to have a balance and give praisewe are not just Jeremiahs. My press release on the roll-out of prison procurement this week was very laudatory of the Department. Where such procurements work well, they are delivered slowly, with piloting, and are not continuous changes. My hon. Friend's point about the need for more training is important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) made a dynamic, young man's speech. He reminded me of my early days as an ardent Thatcherite. All I can do now is go to bed with the collected speeches of Sarah Palinnot a very thick volume. My hon. Friend keeps us all on our toes, and it is good to have him on the Committee. He made the point that when the oversight of Parliament has become so weak in respect of the whole budget process, the audit process is even more important. That is why the Committee's work is so important.
	Of course we all love the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) and his critiques of the royal family, public schools and the rest, and we are very grateful for what he says. We are also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). Lastly, we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands).
	The PAC model has spread throughout the Commonwealth, and I think we should be extremely proud of it. We are proud of our work. We do try to make a difference, and we hope that at the end of the day we save taxpayers money.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the 30th, the 36th, the 39th to the 41st, the 43rd to the 49th, the 51st and the 57th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and of the Treasury Minutes on those Reports (Cm 7493, 7522 and 7545).

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to a written question in column 1124W of volume 463 of  Hansard? It was asked on 25 July 2007 by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who I see is present, and concerned the possibility of the Youth Parliament using this Chamber. The reply given by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who was then Deputy Leader of the House, stated that the matter would be referred to the Modernisation Committee.
	Although the motion that I assume a representative of the Government is about to move is not irregular in the procedural sense, it is clear that the Government have failed to honour the commitment that they gave the House, because the matter has not been put before the Modernisation Committee. I therefore wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you feel that it would be more appropriate for the motion not to be moved until the Committee has had an opportunity to consider the matter.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been a member of the Modernisation Committee since its very first meeting, in the last half of 1997, and I can vouch for the truth of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). The question of using this Chamberuniquelyfor a meeting of the UK Youth Parliament has never been discussed. I fervently believe that if the policy was that it should be referred to the Committee, and if that was stated by a Government Ministerthe Deputy Leader of the Housethat commitment should be honoured before the matter is put before the House as a whole.

Martin Salter: rose

Chris Bryant: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will take one more point of order.

Martin Salter: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House how to deal with circumstances in which hon. Members may have inadvertently misled the House? The Modernisation Committee's 2004 report Connecting Parliament with the Public, to which I was party along with several other Members, contained a recommendation that the UK Youth Parliament use the Chamber of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I respond to the points of order that have been made? I really do think  [Interruption.] Order. Two points of order have been raised with me. I intend to reply to them, and I want the Members concerned to hear what I have to say.
	Let me advise Members that the points raised with the Chair as points of order are actually points that they could well introduce into the debate that is about to take place.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind what you have saidthat certain matters are obviously matters for debatemay I raise with you something that was said by the Prime Minister in his statement following the publication of the Green Paper The Governance of Britain on 3 July 2007? He said:
	Consultation will take place with you, Mr. Speaker, and through the Leader of the House, with this House as to whether the Youth Parliament should be invited here in this Chamber once a year, on a non-sitting day.[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 819.]
	Is it possible to find out, Madam Deputy Speaker, the nature of the consultation that has taken place with Mr. Speaker, and through the Leader of the House, with this House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let me repeat the ruling that I have already made. The points made by the hon. Gentleman could well be made as part of the debate that I hope we shall now be able to hear.

Richard Bacon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it another further point of order?

Richard Bacon: It is directly related to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your answer to it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have heard quite a few variations on the original point of order, but I shall allow one more.

Richard Bacon: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether it would be possible to find out what consultation has taken place with the Speaker's Office. It seems to me that that is not a question for debate, as I have been a Member of this House since 2001 and I have never seen either the Speaker or any of the Deputy Speakers making a speech from the Chair in the sense of taking part in a debate, and I do not expect to see that. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, how should we ascertain what consultation has taken place with the Speaker's Office, as, with the greatest respect, that is plainly not a matter for debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect to the Member, who says he has been in the House since, I think, 2002[Hon. Members: 2001.] He has been a Member of the House since 2001, and I think that he will therefore be aware that during the course of a debate it is quite possiblethis frequently happensfor Members to intervene on Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box to clarify certain queries they may have. Let us now proceed, and commence with this debate.

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and bring about social change; notes that many hon. Members from all parts of the House are actively involved in the work of the UK Youth Parliament; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed for this year alone to hold its 2009 annual meeting in the Chamber of this House.
	I suppose I should start by saying, Seconds out, round two, as this feels like the second part of a debate that did not really begin yesterday. I will also just say this to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is the longest-standing member of the Modernisation Committee, and who raised a point of order just now: he called for a matter to be referred to the Modernisation Committee, but last week he called for the Modernisation Committee to be abolished, so consistency is clearly not one of his major features for today.

Nicholas Winterton: rose

Chris Bryant: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on me yet, but I am sure he will do so in a few moments.
	As I am sure every Member knows, there is a serious issue in terms of the involvement of young people in politics of every kind.

Peter Bone: rose

Chris Bryant: May I develop my argument just a little before the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me?
	We all know that there are problems with young people who are disaffected from society in generalthey exist in every constituency in the landand that antisocial behaviour affects many of our communities, and we also know that the percentage of young people, especially under the age of 24, who turn out for elections has fallen very dramatically, from 60 in the 1990s to the low 30s in the last couple of general elections. In addition, every single political party has found that the number of young people getting involved has fallen. One of the significant innovations in the past decade to try to redress some of these issues is the creation of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. Those who originally thought of creating it had a brilliant idea, and it has made a significant difference on two levels. First, in terms of youth organisation in every constituency, it has led to the positive development that many young people are now actively involved in discussing the major political issues facing the country, instead of just going along to a youth club and playing ping-pong. It has given a structure for the National Youth Agency.
	There have been very significant debates in this building, albeit not in this Chamber. Indeed, there have been meetings in Committee Room 14, which is what the amendment recommends, for the last 10 years. Therefore, it hardly seems like an innovation for hon. Members to be moving that as a halfway-house amendment.

Peter Bone: Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain the Government's thinking over the last week in putting this motion at the end of business, when it could not possibly have been debated? This is an important issue. Why was time not provided? Why were the Government forced, by Members objecting every evening, to have to find time?

Chris Bryant: Clearly, there are priorities, and although making sure that as many young people feel engaged in the political process as possible is a very significant priority for the Government, whether the Chamber should be allocated to the UK Youth Parliament is probably not as important as some of the issues that people were calling on my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to allow time for debate on. However, there would have been debate yesterday if the hon. Gentleman and some other colleagues had not forced debates on issues that they then chose not to vote on.

Nicholas Winterton: I will deal with the matter that the Deputy Leader of the House raised as soon as he got to his feetin respect of my involvement with the Modernisation Committeewhen, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, I catch your eye later. Unless I have been misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), the shadow Leader of the House, the matter has not been discussed with him and he has not been consulted about it, because he told me this only yesterday. If it is so important to the Government and is really a cross-party issue, why have they not had the courtesy to discuss it with my hon. Friend?

Chris Bryant: I do not think I am breaking any confidences in saying that the shadow Leader of the House and I have had some discussions today, and I am happy to come to those issues; I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the basis of those discussions. At the moment, I have discussions with the shadow Leader of the House nearly every dayI do not want to suggest any cosiness in that arrangementbut this is not a matter on which we think it right that there should be a party Whip; we have not wanted to advance in that way. I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who raised the issue of consultation, that, in the end, the only way the Government have of consulting the whole House is by putting something on the Order Paper and having a vote, and that is what I would dearly like us to be able to do.

Nicholas Winterton: rose

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I know that there are several hon. Members who would like

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House does not want to mislead Parliament. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that hon. Members yesterday called for a vote and then did not vote. That is not the case. I called for a vote against the European Union motion and voted against it. That ought to be made clear.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by Mr. Speaker yesterday. He dealt with points of order on this very issue.

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman feels I have slighted him in any way, I do apologise; I would not ever want to do so. I merely note the fact that we had votes yesterday afternoon that seemed to indicate that a lot of people opposed the measures in question, but only four did so on the first, and only six on the second.
	The important issue before us is that the UK Youth Parliament has developed a growing sense of self-confidence as an organisation, and many of the young people involved are from a wide variety of backgrounds, which has been significant in itself. It is interesting to note the breadth of backgrounds of the young people who take part. In the last Youth Parliament, 53 per cent. of its members were women, 47 per cent. were maleobviously2 per cent. had disabilities and 21 per cent. were from black and ethnic minority groups. That is considerably higher than for the nation at large, and considerably higher than in this Chamber. In some senses, it was great to see when those young people were sitting in the House of Lords the breadth and diversity that was shown in that Parliament. Sometimes, I wish that we could mirror that diversity in this Chamber.

David Drew: Can my hon. Friend explain to me why there was apparently no opposition when people from the Youth Parliament were able to sit in the House of Lords? Is that giving some primacy to that Chamber, in the sense that it seems to be more representative than this one? That fills me with alarm.

Chris Bryant: I was about to move on to the fact that last year, the UK Youth Parliament was allowed to use the second Chamber, the House of Lords. It was interesting that there was remarkably little opposition of any kind, in a Chamber that is often considered rather more hidebound by tradition than this one. The young people were really struck by the privilege of being able to do that, and took part with enthusiasm. The Lords Speaker, who chaired the debate herself, said:
	The quality of the debate today has been fantastic. We don't hear the sounds of clapping in this Chamber often. What really impressed me was the courage of people who stood up and took a position which was not the view of the majorityand the respect that you all showed to everyone's viewpoints.
	I spoke to a couple of peers last night who described themselves as the crustiest of crusty Members of the House of Lords and who were entirely enthusiastic about the event last May, and they said it was quite extraordinary that there seemed be another levelanother dimensionof crustiness that could be found only in this House.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge two things? First, one is not elected to the House of Lords; it is wholly different from this Chamber, which is unique. I think I speak for almost all, if not all, my colleagues who have reservations about this proposition. We have nothing but support for the Youth Parliament. We are delighted that it should meet in many places in the Palace of Westminster. Many of the young people involved aspire to come here, and we believe that when they come here to take their seats, it should be the unique experience it was for the Deputy Leader of the House, for me, and for everybody else.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentlemanor the Great Grand Crust, as we shall now know himput in my mind for the first time ever the thought of electing the second Chamber. That is a very good idea.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we are unique because we are elected. The Scottish Parliament, which is elected, has just gone through exactly the same process, and it was an enormously welcome experience to see many young people, who would never have had any experience of active political engagement before, taking part in that Chamber, and the use of the Chamber made a significant difference to the quality of the opportunity available to those young people.

Martin Salter: I invite my hon. Friend to reflect on his exchange with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). The last recorded policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on reform of the other place was for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber. Are we to conclude that should there be a Conservative Government, and should there be a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, the UK Youth Parliament would be thrown out and not ever have another opportunity to debate in that place?

Chris Bryant: I do not think that anyone should ever conclude anything about Conservative party policy; it seems to be a rather moveable feast.
	In the fascinating debates held in the House of Lords, the young people involved voted on which policies they thought were the most important to advance as part of their manifesto. The first concerned recycling and their environmental campaign, which received 490 votes. The second concerned a national public transport concessionary card for young people under the age of 18, which received 425 votes. The abolition of university tuition fees received 252 votes, and they also considered the matter of fair and accurate representation of young people in the media, lowering the voting age to 16 and having one single age at which young people are deemed to become an adult. These were adult debates.

Several hon. Members: rose

Chris Bryant: I give way to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)he is a charming chap.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House because I want to support his cause, and speak for anti-crustiness. It was such an excellent debate in the House of Lords, and as important as the subjects that were discussed was this comment from a delegate who felt that the publicity generated from the House of Lords debate would be a great start:
	This is fantastic press which we've never had before and it's so positive. This is the kind of thing the media really need to focus on.
	They never focused on the debate in Committee Room 14; they might if we have it here, and replicate the success of the other place.

Chris Bryant: That is a very good point. I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)the Young Crust.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman knows I do not agree with him on this point. He advances arguments as to why the proposal for the Youth Parliament to sit in this Chamber might be beneficial to it and to the cause of getting young people involved in Parliament. If he believes it is so beneficial, why does his motion make it possible for that to happen on only one occasion?

Chris Bryant: I was going to come to some of the restrictions that I think will be important if this sitting were to happen, as we have not put them all in the motion. I have spoken to the shadow Leader of the House and I think it would be fair to put some matters concerning how the event would proceed on the record. For instance, I think it would be inappropriate for anybody other than Mr. Speaker to sit in the Speaker's Chair. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for the Mace to be in place. I think that the session should be chaired by a senior Member of this House as opposed to any other person. The normal rules of the House should apply in terms of parliamentary language, dress code, mobile phones and the one issue that particularly worried the shadow Leader of the Housenamely, whether students would be chewing gum or not. It is important, too, that the broadcasting rights would remain with us, as would control over how the session would be broadcast. The fact that the debate in the House of Lords was broadcast on BBC Parliament gave an enormous sense of occasion to the young people, which is something that could never be achieved in Committee Room 14, which is a far clumsier environment and in no sense has the same cachet and significance as this Chamber.
	We would, of course, be able to ensure that access to other parts of the House was restricted so that all security issues were covered. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has just said, this would be a one-off. If hon. Members wanted to return to the issue thereafter, it would be for them to do so. The other most important and significant point is that this would happen on a non-sitting day.

Edward Leigh: To be entirely consistent, if there is a request from the Muslim Council of Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Catholic Union of Great Britain, Age Concern or any other representative body that was as representative of this country as the Youth Parliament is, should not they be allowed to sit here, too?

Chris Bryant: No, because the Youth Parliament is representative of the whole of the United Kingdom. A significant aspect of the Youth Parliament is that it is attempting to bond rather than disunite, and that is why I think that this should be a unique opportunity that is offered to the Youth Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose

Chris Bryant: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), but I shall not give way to longest-standing Member of the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, again, because I know that other Members, including him, want to speak.

Richard Bacon: The Youth Parliament is representative of the UK, but so is Age Concern. Why, if we were to allow such sittings at all, would one not allow them for pensioners? Where would one stop?

Chris Bryant: Many of the public, looking at this House, think that we already have Age Concern sitting here. The significant point

Alan Duncan: That'll come back to haunt you.

Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House is trying to be helpful, but I think that some of the people sitting behind him will attack him just as much as they attack me, so he need not worry about me too much.
	I do not want to delay the House too long.

Christopher Chope: rose

Chris Bryant: I am keen not to give way too often, because I am sure that hon. Members will manage to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the hon. Gentleman is looking querulously at me and very grumpy, so I shall give way.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for giving way. The reason I am looking querulous is that the Prime Minister said:
	Consultation will take place with...Mr. Speaker, and through the Leader of the House, with this House as to whether the Youth Parliament should be invited here in this Chamber once a year, on a non-sitting day.[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 819.]
	He did not say once, but once a year. Is that a pledge that the Prime Minister has made on which the Government are now reneging, or should some other meaning be given to those words?

Chris Bryant: There have been informal consultations around the House and that is why we have tabled a one-off proposal this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to amend it so that it was more in tune with what the Prime Minister originally intended, so that these sittings happened once a year, that course was open to him.
	At the core of this argument is how hon. Members consider their ownership of the Chamber. I believe that it is of course a great privilege to be a Member of Parliament, but we should not stand on ceremony. The old politics of MPs' surrounding themselves in special favours and anything that makes this place seem like a gentlemen's club put off not just young people but the vast majority of voters.

Charles Walker: On a number of occasions, my children, like many other children, have been in this place with me, their father. They have asked me whether they can sit on the green Benches and I have said no, because it is not in my gift to give them that permission. I have said no to my children, whose ages range between four and 12, on two occasions. The right to sit here is conferred on me by licence by my constituents in Broxbourne. It is not a gift for me to give to others.

Chris Bryant: But it is not only the hon. Gentleman's children who should be allowed to come into the Chamber. All the children of this country should be able to do so, because the Chamber [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Leader of the House is responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a further intervention, that will be a matter for the Deputy Leader of the House to decide.

Chris Bryant: I am happy to give way again to the hon. Gentleman.

Charles Walker: Numerous children from my primary and secondary schools have visited this Chamber. I have gone to speak to them subsequently and they have told me that they have had a wonderful time here. The idea that Charles Walker's children have a privilege that other children in my constituency do not have is nonsense. Charles Walker's children have no more and no less in the way of privilege than any other children in my constituency.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry if I have offended the hon. Gentleman, who I think has misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. Quite simply, the decision about who can and cannot sit on these Benches is for the whole House, not any individual Member. Personally, I would like those elected to the Youth Parliament to be able to sit in this Chamber, on one occasion in the coming year.

Martin Salter: Does the Deputy Leader of the House think it might be helpful to conduct some referendums in random constituenciesReading, West and Broxbourne, perhapsto see what people think of Members of Parliament who want to deny young people the fantastic opportunity to debate in this place? If such referendums were conductedand they may well bedoes he agree that hon. Members who take that position might be honour bound to listen to the views of their constituents?

Chris Bryant: I do not think that this is a party-political issue. This should be something that unites all those who want to ensure that young people have an opportunity to take an active part in modern British politics and to value the British parliamentary tradition. All too often, the young people who do get involved in politics have nothing to do with that tradition because they are engaged only with single-issue campaigns. I think that allowing them to use the Chamber has a significant value, and I am certain that any referendum of young people in my constituency of Rhonddaor in that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Housewould show them to be surprised to hear Members of Parliament say that only they can ever be allowed to sit in this Chamber. For that matter, I expect that I would find the same were I to ask pensioner groups in my area the same question.

Greg Knight: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

Chris Bryant: No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me

Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee!

Chris Bryant: I know who he is, and I will give way to him.

Greg Knight: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have a genuine point that I hope he will clarify before he concludes his remarks. He said that he wanted the Youth Parliament to sit here for one day, yet the motion before us refers not to one day but to its annual meeting. Last year, the Youth Parliament's annual meeting ran over four days, from 19 to 22 July. Is he seeking to allow four days or one day of debate in the Chamber?

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentlemanmy right hon. Friend, indeedwho chairs the Procedure Committee makes a helpful contribution. The truth is that we are talking about only one day.  [ Interruption. ] I hear Opposition Members ask why, and the answer is that we believe this should be a one-off, unique opportunity.
	I believe that this Chamber is not ours but is merely on loan from the people whom we represent. The young people of the UK Youth Parliament do not just own this country's futurethey are also a vital part of our present, and we should not exclude them. We should definitely welcome them in, and I very much hope that the House will allow a vote to be held and the UK Youth Parliament to use this Chamber.

Alan Duncan: I will speak as briefly as I possibly can to allow as many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members as possible also to speak in the debate.
	I have a few observations to start with, one of which is that the inspiration for much of the Youth Parliament came from the late Andrew Rowea former Conservative Member of Parliament known to many if not all of usso its origins lie in a colleague who sat on this side of the House.
	At its best, the Youth Parliament is something that we all ought to applaud. In an age when too many young people think, Oh, politicians are all the same, and we don't want anything to do with politics, to see enthusiastic youngsters acting in a replica of the House, having been elected in their schools and elsewhere, is something that we ought to applaud. To encourage young people to enjoy the idea of Parliament and to participate in its concepts and merits is something that we should all do if we possibly can.
	I came to the issue very much in the middle, after the reshuffle, and quite a lot of water had gone under the bridge before I understood quite what was going on, even though I raised it on 12 February in the second of my encounters with the Leader of the House. It is a pity that this has been mishandled. The trouble is that the motion on the Order Paper is very broad and no terms and conditions are attached, and there has been no consultation with Front Benchers or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has said, with any of the relevant Committees, despite assurances that that would happen.
	We have an open motion, no consultation and basically a vacuum of understanding about what is really proposed. There are no understood terms and conditions, no rules of engagement and no basic details, which we all understand lie behind the motion. It is therefore fully understandable that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have found the whole process objectionable and are fearful of what we are being asked to vote for, and therefore object to it in principle. I fully understand their annoyance, which is felt mostly by hon. Members who have a fervent and long-standing appreciation of the courtesies and proprieties of the House. It may not be sacred, but it is a supremely important place. It is not just any old room. It is a symbolic and working Parliament, looked at across the world as the seat of democracy. It is the pinnacle of democracy in our country, and therefore its use cannot be treated lightly.
	The experiment in the Lords worked rather well. It was broadcast on the Parliament channel. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said and even as Members of the House of Lords have said, it really did go extremely well, and it was a credit to the participants who debated and were televised there. When I discovered in the midst of all this that I was very much in the crossfire, I undertook to try to broker at least some understanding of what might be involved. Having asked for some sort of discussion a couple of days ago, so that we could have an exchange of letters or comments about what would be involved, I finally spoke to the hon. Gentleman today, and he has kindly referred to what was basically my checklist of what I thought should be at least explained to the House.

Nicholas Winterton: I stated in an earlier intervention that my hon. Friend had told me only yesterday that there had been no consultation with the Leader of the House or, for that matter, the Deputy Leader of the House. However, in response the Deputy Leader of the House indicated that there had been consultation. I made it clear in my intervention that I spoke to my hon. Friend about the matter yesterday. Now, my hon. Friend, whose remarks so far I entirely endorse, has said that, in fact, no consultant took place until today. Has not the Deputy Leader of the House been slightlyhow do I put itdisingenuous in replying to my intervention? In fact, yesterday, there had been no consultation.

Alan Duncan: No, my hon. Friend may have misheard the Deputy Leader of the House, who used the word today, and if one were to read the record, he was absolutely accurate in what he said.  [ Interruption. ] That is exactly what he said, and his account was fully honest and accurate. His comments certainly reflect my knowledge of what we have and have not discussed. It was indeed today that we discussed a basic checklist. I will rattle through it.
	I think that it is inappropriate for anyone to sit in the Speaker's Chair, other than the Speaker.

Chris Bryant: Or the Deputy Speaker.

Alan Duncan: Indeed. It is as if we were to treat it with the same respect with which the throne of the sovereign might be treated in another place. I do not think that the symbol of the Queen's authority, the Mace, should appear if this place is used by anybody else. People should have to dress properly. They should meet our standards. They should do their bestthey will be youngto follow our forms of debate. Obviously, basic rules such as no mobiles and no food should follow. The standards that we are required to meet should be met by them.

Andrew Miller: I understand the hon. Gentleman's observation about the Mace, but the parliamentary education service uses a mock Mace. Would its use in the Chamber be acceptable?

Alan Duncan: No. I am negotiating very hard to try to allay the fears of some of my colleagues.
	The broadcasting issue is important. The House of Lords event was broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel, but as the Deputy Leader of the House said, if the proposal goes ahead, it is essential that the House retains all editorial control. If anyone misbehaves, that should be expunged from the record. We are not going to allow anyone to carry out a little stunt, and then somehow parade it in their literature, or give it publicity in the years ahead by, say, putting it on YouTube. Nothing like that must be allowed to emanate from the event.  [Interruption.] Not like the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter); he has missed many opportunities to do that.

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend says that he will not allow any stunts to be shown. If the event is broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel, and someone makes a recording, how can he stop that from happening?

Alan Duncan: The recording will have been edited for any nonsense, so that it will not be shown.

Peter Bone: I agree with certain remarks made by my hon. Friend so far. As the BBC Parliament channel broadcasts live, can he explain how any remarks will be edited out?

Alan Duncan: It need not be broadcast live; I believe that it was not on the last occasion. There are other issues, such as access and the use of any Galleries. My personal view is that only the secure Gallery should be used; parents may want to watch their children perform in the debate. There is the question whether the Division Lobbies should be used. Frankly, if the proposal goes ahead, it would be illogical not to allow the young people to learn how to vote.

Edward Leigh: To get the complete experience, should they not be allowed to use all the bars of the House, too?

Alan Duncan: Many of them will be under age, so I fear that that may be thoroughly inappropriate. There are of course administrative issues, such as the policing of the event, and what happens to access for the public on the day, but I think that they are fairly obvious and easy to overcome.

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely constructive about the terms of engagement. Has he spoken to members of last year's Youth Parliament about how things went in the House of Lords, and does he accept that most of the points that he described were properly observed by the debaters last year?

Alan Duncan: I have not spoken to any of the individual participants, but I have spoken with a number of people who observed their proceedings, and every single person to whom I spoke said that that the participants behaved in an impeccable and impressive way, and were excited and thrilled. Everything that they did was a credit to them, and indeed to the sort of processes that we would like to see them observe. As an experiment, it was 100 per cent. successful and laudable.
	The question remains whether this House would like those young peopleyouth parliamentarians, as they see themselvesto be able to sit on the leather Benches, which all of us have fought very hard to do. It ends up being a decision on whether we think that what we have done is so fantastic that no one else should be allowed just to get that little tingle of excitement from feeling that they might one day be able to do what all of us have done.
	We are not the permanent stewards of this place. We are passing through it, and for democracy to survive, other generations will have to replace us. Why, under the right terms and conditions and following the right rules, do we not allow them that thrill and excitement and hope that perhaps in a few years a genuinely elected Member of Parliament will say that their inspiration for politics derived in part from that day when they were experimenting, sitting here and getting the excitement of this place, and they suddenly realised that politics does matter, that Parliament does matter, and that a senior group of elected parliamentarians gave them the privilege and the permission to do it for just a day?

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Duncan: In my closing exciting moments, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Edward Leigh: It is not about us. It is not as though we were speaking about some cosy club in St. James's that we want to reserve for ourselves. It is about our constituents. It is their right and no one else's. For more than 1,000 years it has been the right of the entire people of the United Kingdom to send Members here. That is why, in my hon. Friend's words, the Chamber is not any old room. It is a sacred part of the constitution.

Lyn Brown: rose

Alan Duncan: I will give way, then I will conclude.

Lyn Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his constituents, like mine, would totally agree with the position that he has just put before the House?

Alan Duncan: Some of the greatest moments in history arise from wise people deciding that just occasionally a rule is designed to be broken, and that exceptions should be made in order to allow something special to happen.
	This should happen only once. We do not want the Chamber to be taken over, to become a venue for parties or a favoured catering place. This is a one-off, to try to say to young people, Parliament matters. If you get elected, go for it. We should let them do it, on the right terms and conditions. I shall support the motion tonight, should we get to a vote.

David Heath: In this instance, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), because I agree with the points that he put forward. This is a matter for every individual Member of the House. It is not appropriate for it to be party political, and Members will take their own decision.
	We have an opportunity to do something of immense value for an institution which we should respect and for which we should have great ambitions. I have been in contact with people in my constituency who have been seeking election to the Youth Parliament. I have given them assistance and helped with the process of election. I felt that it was a significant addition to our political system. It encourages young people to understand the democratic process, to participate in the democratic process, and to participate in the right way, understanding how our systems work.
	The opportunity to give those young people the opportunity, just for one day, to experience this place is precious and in our gift. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton spoke about the tingle of coming into this place for the first time. I admit that I am a romantic about the Chamber. I still feel a buzz and a privilege every time I am permitted to sit here and to say what I believe in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Greg Hands: Why did the hon. Gentleman walk out?

David Heath: I did not. The hon. Gentleman is making a silly intervention.
	I hope that we all feel that way about the Chamber. When we cease to feel it, that is the time to pack up and find another career.

Graham Brady: So far speakers from both Front Benches have given an indication that, although they believe that allowing young people to come here on one occasion is an important opportunity to inspire them, they believe that it should happen once and once only. Does the hon. Gentleman share that view, or would he like to see it happen every year?

David Heath: I shall come to that point in a moment.
	First, like the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, I deprecate the fact that there was no proper consultation on this issue. That, I am afraid, is so typical of how the Government do these things.  [Interruption.] I hear the word arrogance spoken from a sedentary position, and it is appropriate. That lack of consultation is so unnecessary; it does not take much to consult properly and make sure that people are happy with arrangements before plonking before the House a motion to which people are expected to agree without debate. That is an unfortunate way of doing business, and it is important to say that. Having said it, I should add that some hon. Membersas I shall explain, I respect their position in some wayswould never agree if they were consulted for the next decade on the subject. There is a point at which we have to stop consulting and start deciding. Perhaps one of the Government's besetting faults is that sometimes they consult for too long and do not decide sufficiently.

Greg Knight: Is not the Government's position worse than the hon. Gentleman has indicated? This is not a case of their failing to consult; they promised to consult, and failed to do so.

David Heath: That is not unfamiliar when it comes to matters in the House, and as we keep on saying, it is unfortunate. I hope that the day will arrive when there is machinery to allow the various parties to be consulted properly about the business of the House in advance of its being placed before them. We could then organise our affairs efficiently and effectively, people could have time to discuss what needs to be discussed, and time would not be wasted on what does not need to be discussed. That, however, is a matter for another day; what I am talking about now is the opportunity for the UK Youth Parliament to use the Chamber.
	I said that I respected the view contrary to mine. I do; Members should not be insulted or assumed to be an irrelevancy because they have strongly held views on this subject. They adduce two argumentsneither of which I agree with, but which are respectable. The first is almost theological: it is about the sacred nature of the Chamber, and the notion that it is consecrated by its history and traditions and that nobody under any circumstances should be allowed to violate the holy of holies and sanctum sanctorum that is the House. I understand that position, but do not agree with it. As far as I am concerned, this chamber becomes the Chamber of the House of Commons when the Mace is in position, the Speaker or Deputy Speakers are in their seat and the House is sitting. I am sorry, but the rest of the time it is a building with great history, but it is just a building. There is a distinction between the House when it is sitting and otherwise.
	The point is understood by almost every other legislature in the world. I am a Member of the British Parliament, but I have sat in seats in the Assemble Nationale, the Bundestag and the Chamber of the House of Commons of Canada, which is similar to this Chamber. I have sat in the Lok Sabha in India and in a whole host of examples of the Sobranije or Majlis across eastern Europe and central Asia. There has been no intrinsic problem with my doing so. I do not believe that any one of those legislatures believes that its sovereignty or traditions were destroyed by my sitting in one of its seats for a few moments.

Chris Bryant: Apart from this one.

David Heath: Possibly apart from this one, as the hon. Gentleman says. I think that we can dispose of that first argument.
	The second argument is about precedent, and it was touched on earlier. It is that once we allow one organisation to use the Chamber, the floodgates will open and we will be unable to deny any requests. What a lack of self-confidence in this sovereign House's ability to decide its own affairs! As far as I am concerned, we decide what happens here, and if we decide that the UK Youth Parliament will use the Chamber for one occasion and one occasion only, that will be the decision. If we decide at a future stage that it was a great success in building confidence in and understanding of democracy in this country among the young, as it was in the House of Lords, we may repeat the experience. That is in the hands of this House. I do not have so little confidence in the House's ability to take decisions on this matter that I fear that the slippery slope of precedent will somehow sweep all before it and we will be unable to take any decision in future.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will give way, but for the last time. I believe that the hon. Gentleman might wish to make a speech himself.

Christopher Chope: I will hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one argument that could be deployed if the motion were accepted is that in future the majority party in the House should be able to have party meetings in this Chamber comprising solely Members of Parliament? That could be pushed through by a majority vote. Does he concede that precedent argument?

David Heath: One could make all sorts of conjecture or imagine all sorts of extraordinary goings-on. In my constituency there is a twinning meeting between the town of Wincanton and Ankh-Morpork, which some Members will know is an imaginary place in the world of science-fiction, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld. The people who attend that meeting sit in the chamber of Wincanton town council once a year. I do not anticipate that the House of Commons will invite the denizens of Ankh-Morpork to come and sit here; nor do I expect the Labour party to use it as its constituency headquarters for the Cities of London and Westminster, although one never knows.
	This decision is one that Members of all parties should make. I believe that it is a one-off, and that the precautions that were suggested by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and agreed by the Deputy Leader of the House make perfect sense. I will support the motion. I invite colleagues to do so, but it will be a free vote.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation Act 2009
	Northern Ireland Act 2009

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

Debate resumed.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see many Members hoping to catch my eye, and I want to enable as many as possible to participate in the debate. Time is limited, and I would therefore ask Members to exercise some self-discipline in the length of their remarks.

Martin Salter: I rise to support the motion as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I first wish to put on record a correction of what I am sure is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). He said that this matter had not been before a Committee of the House, but that is patently untrue. In fact, the proposal has come not from the Executive but from an all-party Select Committee that includes the hon. Gentleman. It was agreed to without a vote in 2004. Recommendation 9 in Connecting Parliament with the Public, the Modernisation Committee's first report of Session 2003-04, stated:
	We believe there is a case for reconsideration of the long-standing convention that only elected Members of Parliament may ever sit in the Chamber, which is in contrast to the practice of many other legislatures.

Greg Knight: rose

Martin Salter: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I believe that he was a member of the Modernisation Committee at the time. We debated the matter at length and heard compelling evidence from the youth development officer at Lewisham council, the parliamentary education service and the UK Youth Parliament. All our witnesses said clearly what a fantastic opportunity it would be for young people to come into this Chamberthe cockpit of the mother of Parliamentsand be treated with maturity and respect, not patronised in the way that they have been in some of the contributions that we have heard. Of course the UK Youth Parliament is capable of a mature, sensible debate. Its members are the future citizens of our country and deserve to be treated with respect. That is what is intended in the motion.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but it is not relevant. On a point of order, I raised a written question, which was tabled in 2007some three years after the report from which he quotedand the reply that the then Deputy Leader of the House gave was that the Leader of the House will be raisingnot has raisedthe issue with the Modernisation Committee. I am afraid that that has not happened.

Martin Salter: That does not alter the facts of the case. It is a question of how many Tory backwoodsmen can dance on the head of a pin. They will use any procedural ruse to prevent the matter from being put to a vote, because they know perfectly well that they would be defeated and the UK Youth Parliament would have an opportunity to debate here.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Salter: I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned vigorously on the matter for the past eight or nine years.

Michael Jabez Foster: Indeed. Five or six years ago, when I proposed the matter, some Conservative Members suggested that young people sitting on the green Benches might constitute treason. Is my hon. Friend sure that that technicality has been sorted out?

Martin Salter: I have always believed that the definition of treason should be elastic, so I am not in a position to advise my hon. Friend.
	One of the pleasures I derived from serving on the Modernisation Committee was seeing how apoplectic the hon. Member for Macclesfield got whenever it was suggested that anything other than an elected posterior should be allowed to grace the leather.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: I am happy to give way, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's attitude will not disappoint.

Nicholas Winterton: I express my views with convictionwhether that constitutes apoplexy is a matter of individual judgment. If the proposal had come forward as a recommendation for the Modernisation Committee, I would not have supported it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, the then Deputy Leader of the House answered a question in 2007 by saying that the matter would be referred to the Modernisation Committee. That has not happened. I also emphasise that the Modernisation Committee has not met since the summer recess.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that there is little time for debate. If Members want to intervene, I remind them again that they must be brief.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members who are present and interested in the matter have not spoken, is there any reason for holding a Division rather than carrying over the matter so that further time can be found for a clearly important debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The time that the debate concludes is printed on the Order Paperit is 6 pm.

Martin Salter: I think that we are witnessing the first tremors of apoplexy from the hon. Gentleman. The minutes of the report that I cited clearly show that the membership of the Modernisation Committee in 2003-04 included him. The report includes recommendation 9 about reviewing the case for reserving use of the Chamber for elected Members of Parliament, and the minutes also show that there was no Division. It is therefore disingenuous for members of that Committee to claim that the matter was not discussed and that they sought to oppose the recommendation.
	There are times when I am proud to be a Member of the House and there are times when I am slightly saddened. I am sad when young people are patronised and an organisation as worthy as the UK Youth Parliament is traduced in the way that some hon. Members have tried to do. The UK Youth Parliament is an excellent institution. I grew up in the '60s and '70s, when young people were energised by the political process. A lot of us feel despair at the lack of turnout and engagement among young people in the party political process and in the general political process. For us, as a Parliament, to be shutting our doors on a small group of young people who wish to participate and engage in our democratic process is disgraceful.

John Bercow: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I counsel him against his serious tendency towards understatement, which he has developed over a period of years. Is it not sad that we have already been beaten to it by the House of Lords, and would it not at least be graceful of us to follow now with due haste?

Martin Salter: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his statesmanlike intervention. I never thought that I would say this as an old lefty, but the longer that I am in this place, the more I look across at the other place and think that there are more lessons to be learned there than I ever envisaged.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps Members of the House will conduct themselves in the way in which they suggest members of the Youth Parliament conduct themselves.

Martin Salter: I have another problem for Opposition Members who feel that their traditions, their security or even their very being would be threatened by some young people meeting once a year in this place. The records show that the House authorities have identified the fact that asbestos exists in this building. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have been considering the possibility of relocating us across the roadI think to the Queen Elizabeth centrewhile the work takes place. I am afraid that the traditions of this place may yet be subject to health and safety legislation. When we are away and the contractors are in this place removing the asbestos, goodness knows, treason may happen. A building workera working-class personmay end up sitting on the green Benches, and what a terrible thing that would be.

Jeremy Browne: Surely the current state of affairs is clear-cut. If someone is an elected Member of Parliament, they are entitled to sit here and if they are not, they are not. All the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward seem to be equally good arguments in favour of the General Synod, the Muslim Council of Britain or the women's institute sitting here. I cannot see from the logic of his argument why he would not have a sitting from some exterior group take place every weekend.

Martin Salter: If I am ever elected to the Muslim Council of Britain or the women's institute, I may make similar arguments, but I am not. I am an elected Member of this place and I want to open it up to the next generation of voters, who I hope will form a House of Commons that is more progressive, liberal and open-minded than what we have heard from Members in some parts of the ChamberI use the word liberal advisedly.
	The arguments are so clear and overpowering that we do not need to get stuck in process. In the few minutes before I conclude, I want to give those in the UK Youth Parliament a voice. We have been talking at them, rather than about what they might do, what they might get out of the experience or what they might feel. Let me read into the record what the chief executive of the UK Youth Parliament said only a couple of days ago. He is a gentleman called Andy Hamflett and he gave evidence to the Speaker's Conference in Parliament, highlighting how politicians could be doing more to reach out to young people. Speaking about the Speaker's Conference, Andy said:
	It was a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the great work that Local Authorities and young people undertake as part of the UKYP partnership...Many ideas were discussed, but for me the unifying theme was that young people from diverse communities often feel disconnected from Parliament because they cannot see role models representing them in the House. They need to see people like themselves in representative positions to believe that it can be done.
	I therefore made the point that if Parliament really wants to open its doors to young people, a very simple first step would be to allow Members of Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons chamber. It would be the perfect opportunity for young people across the country to see the fantastic diversity of Members of Youth Parliament, and to inspire them to take their own steps to get involved in politics and decision making.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: No, I will not give way. I have been very generous in giving way.
	One of my political mentors was a gentleman called Mr. Hogben. He was, I think, a leader writer for  The Times, as well as being my British constitution teacher at schoolwe did not have politics in those days. He spotted in me and in other young people in our class an interest in the world around us, and he sought to develop and inspire it. He ensured that we came to the Chamber of this place, where I was privileged to see Barbara Castle tearing into the industrial relations legislation of the time. My teacher also took me to see Ralph Miliband at the politics society at Kingston; he nurtured my interest and my passion. I have to say that he, as a democrat, would be spinning in his grave if he had to listen to some of the arguments being put forward today to shut young people out of this place. We should be doing everything we can to inspire the next generation of democratic representatives. We should vote in favour of this motion, because it is called progress.

Nicholas Winterton: We have just heard a diatribe from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), which did not add anything at all to the debate. I was particularly taken, however, with the intervention by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), because the matters that he raised have not, in fact, been properly addressed.
	May I say to the House that I have taken legal advice informally, and I am advised that if we set a precedent of enabling people who are not elected to this place to meet in this place, a precedent will be set? A precedent will be set if the House decides to take that decision. The hon. Member for Taunton referred to a number of organisations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain and the women's institutehe could have mentioned the National Pensioners Convention. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House why he does not believe that the people in this country who turn out most in electionsnamely, the grey voteshould have as equal an opportunity as the Youth Parliament to have a meeting in this place. They are a very important part of this country.
	By the way, the UK Youth Parliament represents only a small number of young people in the United Kingdom. I know this because in my own county of Cheshire, I have taken a very active interest in the UK Youth Parliament. Along with my wife my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) who represents Congletonand other Members of Parliament representing Cheshire constituencies, I have attended the annual gatherings of the Youth Parliament in county hall in Chester. We have met many of the representatives who have been elected in their particular areas.

Tim Loughton: rose

Andrew Miller: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I give way to my hon. Friend, who caught my eye first.

Tim Loughton: I very much respect the points that my hon. Friend is making, but there is a fundamental difference between the Muslim Council of Britain, Age Concern or the other groups that he has mentioned and the Youth Parliament. People from any one of those groups could stand for Parliament and place themselves on these Benches by election, but the 11 to 17-year-old members of the UK Youth Parliament cannot do so because of their age [Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Sitting in front of me, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who represents a seat very close to mine in Greater Manchester, has just said from a sedentary position: What about Polish workers? They are probably unrepresented and they would like to have a meeting. There is a very large number of Polish workers in this country. I say sincerely to this House that a very dangerous precedent might well be set.

John Bercow: rose

Andrew Miller: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I give way across the House to the hon. Gentleman, who also comes from my own county of Cheshire.

Andrew Miller: I was thinking about some of the meetings of the Youth Parliament that the hon. Gentleman and I have attended. Has any problem occurred due to the fact that when the Youth Parliament meets in Cheshire's county hall, its members sit on the benchesthe seatsthat are normally allocated to elected councillors? What on earth is the difference? They are seats. The important thing, surely, is the status of the institution. We should be proud of the fact that we are extending the facility of being able to come here to the young people of this country.

Nicholas Winterton: I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that when I was present, the members of the Youth Parliament were not sitting on the benches occupied by councillors. They were sitting round tables, drinking and eating. Therefore, to an extent, behaviour that would not be allowed here appears from time to time to be practised by the Youth Parliament, certainly when it meets in county hall in Chester.

John Bercow: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I do give way, but only reluctantly, because my hon. Friend's intervention will be most unhelpful. He has, like Paul, been transformed on the road to Damascus.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of considerable pride, but he has said that he has taken legal advice without disclosing his source. May I politely suggest to him that the idea that this is some sort of slippery slope and that we will tie our hands is, frankly, nonsense on stilts? He cannot say, on the one hand, that he believes in and asserts parliamentary sovereignty and, on the other, that we do not have such sovereignty. He really cannot have it both ways.

Nicholas Winterton: Oh but I can. What is more, I say to my hon. Friend that at one time he would have been shoulder to shoulder with me on these matters. When I went to his constituency before he was elected, he indicated that I was not really positively enough centre-right in speaking for him. So, there has been something of

John Bercow: People are allowed to change.

Nicholas Winterton: I know. I am being interrupted, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to make progress. I say to my hon. Friend that I have been in this placegood or bad, right or wrong, whether people like it or notfor nearly 38 years and I have been utterly consistent.

Chris Bryant: rose

Nicholas Winterton: I give way, because the Deputy Leader of the House is being courteous. He has been slightly rude to me, but I rather like him.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman rather likes itbeing rude, that is. He bemoans the fact that the UK Youth Parliament does not stretch to every community in the country, which is true, but I would have thought that the opportunity to sit in the House would make it far easier for the Youth Parliament to spread across the whole country and to recruit more members, including in his constituency.

Nicholas Winterton: I do not share that view. One thing that worries me about the debate is that so far there has been no mention whatever of the amendment, which has been selected by the Chair. The amendment states that the UK Youth Parliament

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has been selected, but it is yet to be moved.

Nicholas Winterton: I hope that I have your permission, Madam Deputy Speakerat least tacitlyto refer to the amendment.
	Nobody wants to keep young people out of this Palace. Like people in all parts of the House, we want to encourage more and more young people to take an interest in politics and party politics. I spend considerable time in my constituency going round secondary schools in particular, although I also visit junior schools, to meet fifth and sixth-formers, because they are developing an interest in politics. We have a free and encouraging exchange of questions and answers. I believe

David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because of his huge involvement in local government and the aid that he is giving to those counties that have been underfunded in education.

David Kidney: I was shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Gentleman on the Modernisation Committee when we wrote the report recommending that we consider using this Chamber for young people to debate, set in the context, if I may remind him, of supporting citizenship education in this country. I know that he is about to say, Let's put them Upstairs in a Committee Room, so let me put the following argument to him. The youngsters of the Youth Parliament debated in Committee Room 14 and performed in an exemplary way. They were rewarded by next being able to debate in the House of Lords, where, as we have heard, they also behaved in an exemplary way. What is wrong with now rewarding them with the pinnacle of our Parliament, being able to debate in this Chamber?

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman always expresses his arguments in a most persuasive and constructive way, but he and I differ. I believe that either Committee Room 14 or the Grand Committee Room would be ideal chambers for the Youth Parliament to meet in and to have debates. Let me pick up the moving remarks of the Liberal shadow Leader of the House, who said that nobody is more loyal to this Chamber and believes more strongly in its integrity and that of the House than him. Looking at him eye to eye, let me say that I do not think anyone could fault my support for the Chamber of the House. In recent times, almost my sole raison d'tre for remaining in this place has been to restore to the House more authority over the conduct of its business. For that reason and my total commitment to the integrityand, yes, sovereigntyof the House, I take the position that I do.
	I am not against young people in any way. I have eight grandchildren, and seven of them are boysone girl. In fact, the latest boy [Interruption.] Does the Deputy Leader of the House want to intervene?

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

Nicholas Winterton: What I am saying is that people fight elections to enable them to sit on these green Benches, and we should not underestimate the status of being elected to come and take a seat in this House. The House is easily carried away, perhaps on what people believe to be political correctness and appealing to young people. If there were the referendum that Labour Members have talked about, I wonder whether its result would be what they believe.
	I say, in particular to the hon. Member for Reading, West, who, sadlyI say this with emphasis and sincerityis leaving the House at the next election, and we will be deprived of his outspoken comments that occasionally enliven debates in this place

Martin Salter: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he is staying on?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I said earlier, we have limited time left, and I want the discussion to be on the motion before the House.

Nicholas Winterton: I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to respond briefly to the challenge. The answer is that I have been reselected to stand

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members hope to catch my eye. Will the hon. Gentleman conclude his remarks?

Nicholas Winterton: Of course I will.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Winterton: Of course.

Greg Knight: I am most grateful to my hon. and young Friend. Does he agree that if the debate does not conclude today and is resumed on another day, it would help many of us if the Deputy Leader of the House were to circulate a list of the conditions that he considers appropriate to attach to the use of the Chamber by the Youth Parliament? None of those conditions are mentioned in the motion. The Deputy Leader of the House has gone some way towards allaying many fears today, but there should be a list of his proposed rules of the game, as it were, if the matter proceeds further.

Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend's intervention has been extremely helpful.

Chris Bryant: rose

Nicholas Winterton: Before the Deputy Leader of the House intervenes, let me give a commitment. If such an undertaking is given, I will myself examine the criteria that will form part of the information provided by the Leader of the House about the basis on which the Chamber could be made available to the UK Youth Parliament, and I will certainly review the position that I am currently taking.

Chris Bryant: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman means that he will not only review his opinion but revise it. I suspect not, but I am more than happy to make the commitment suggested by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who chairs the Procedure Committee. Let me add that I think it right for there to be no still photography in the Chamber. That applies to us when we sit here, and I think it should also apply to the UK Youth Parliament if it does so.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has given a very fair response, but I cannot give a commitment to revise my opinion; I would review it. The hon. Member for Reading, West read out an extract from a 2004 Select Committee report which referred to reviewing the matter, rather than making a decision to use the Chamber.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of slightly conflicting statements that have been made, including some from the Chair, will you clarify whether it is your intention to put the question at 6 pm regardless, or whether there will indeed be an opportunity for the debate to be resumed on another day? My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is basing his excellent speech on the assumption that that is the case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has not yet moved the amendment selected by Mr. Speaker, obviously believes it to be the case. You yourself said that the proceedings had to conclude at 6 pm. Will you kindly confirm, for the benefit of us all, that we can resume the debate on another day?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling that I gave was that the debate had to conclude by 6 pm. That is why I have urged Members to make their contributions brief. The hon. Gentleman will, however, be aware of the procedures of the House. If the debate is still continuing at 6 pm, it will be adjourned.

Christopher Chope: In the light of the helpful intervention by the Deputy Leader of the House, does my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield accept that the Administration Committee, which is already keen to have a report on the subject, is the appropriate vehicle for consideration of the detail of this proposal?

Nicholas Winterton: I think that I have made the position clear. I am not sure whether the Deputy Leader of the House is actually sympathetic to the idea that there should be further debate on the subject in the light of additional information that the Government will provide on the basis that, once a year, the Chamber might be made available to the UK Youth Parliament.
	Let me return to my fundamental objection. I fought long and hard to get into the House. There are people who fought many more elections before they got into the House, and I respect them for their determination and commitment to serve this nation as Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I repeat that I take the views expressed by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), very seriously indeed.
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)). 
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This point of order is not in relation to the debate we have just had. The shadow Leader of the House raised a point of order earlier this afternoon about the publication of the list of Ministers' interests, which he was concerned might have been leaked to newspapers before it was made available to the House. In fact, the report in the  Evening Standard refers to matters that have been published in the Register of Members' Interests and are not in the list of Ministers' interests, but I thought it would be useful for all Members to know that it is available in the Library and the Vote Office.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that clarification.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to transgress on your time again, but as there is great interest in the subject we have just been debating, I think it would be extremely helpful to all those present if the Leader of the House were able to indicate when tomorrow will be.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that is a matter that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to convey to hon. Members at another

Chris Bryant: Tomorrow is another day, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am, indeed, only too well aware of that.

PETITION
	  
	Planning and Development (Cheshire)

Stephen O'Brien: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of my constituentsbased mainly in Tarporleyfollowing the collection of signatures by a sincere and unselfish, but concerned, community action group. It has managed to gather in a very short space of time many hundreds of signatures, and it has my full support in objecting to the resubmission of an application for a so-called continuing care community development in the Tarporley area. It is through petitions that Members have the opportunity to stand up for both proportionality and balance in our communities. While planning is not a matter of immediate relevance to this House, it is vital that we state any objections on the public record through petitions.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Tarporley and surrounding areas,
	Declares that Vale Royal Borough Council should reject the planning application reference 08-2866-FUM for the development of a continuing care community on land adjacent to Heatherways, Tarporley, due to the negative impact on the village and its amenities that such a development would cause.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to indicate to Vale Royal Borough Council that this application is not substantially different from the previous application 08-0779-FUM and so must therefore be opposed by Vale Royal Borough Council for the same reasons; and instruct Vale Royal Borough Council to place on public record that due to the negative impact on the village and its amenities such a development would cause, the proposed site is confirmed as unsuitable for such a development in the future.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000328]

FLOODING IN SOMERSET

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Watts.)

David Heath: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue that is of enormous importance to my constituents: the flooding that we in Somerset repeatedly experience, and most recently over the Christmas period and early in the new year. I was a victim myself, as I have already told the House; my car was washed away with me in it. That was a rather unpleasant experience, and it is not one I would care to repeat. Others, however, had much more serious experiences. Unfortunately, an elderly gentleman died in his car in similar circumstances in my constituency, and many people's houses were flooded, and a substantial number of them have not returned to their dwellings even now.
	Somerset is a wet county. It is a very green county, but the reason is that it rains a lot. We recognise that floods have always been a part of Somerset life. Indeed, the centre part of Somerset, what is now called the Somerset levels, was once the great merea large inland lake, since drained, but which reverts to a flooded condition for large parts of the winter months.
	More recently, we have seen a repetition of flooding beyond the normal seasonal flooding. Often, it is not directly from watercourses but is surface-water flooding, which is of concern. Frankly, it is stretching the resources of people who live in the county and the services that deal with them to the limit. I visited the villages of Queen Camel and West Camel when they were flooded. I went to Marston Magna, which is not in my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), where the pub was flooded and cut off. I have since been to the parish councils to talk about flooding in Bridgehampton and in Ilchester Mead, which is close to the A303. There were serious flooding incidents in Ash and in Martock. Over this weekend I am visiting Stoney Stratton, where a very serious flash flood is still causing concern, as it has not been properly addressed by the local authorities. Some 30 cars for sale at a garage in a village called Anchor Hill, in Holton, were lost as a result of flooding from the watercourse there.
	So these are serious matters for my constituents, and I want to set out some of the arguments for further action, some of the things that have already been done in Somerset that are good role models for elsewhere, and some of the areas where a combination of Government, local government, the Environment Agency and other agencies can make a significant difference. Of course, we look at all this in the context of what the Pitt review had to say about dealing with flooding in areas such as ours. I hope that much of what I say will be consistent with that view and with the Government's view.
	Let me give a specific instance that I raised with the Secretary of State during questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: the flooding of the Countess Gytha school in Queen Camel. It has repeatedly flooded and its pupils have repeatedly needed to be evacuated and moved into alternative accommodation. I was on hand when temporary classrooms were put in to replace the flooded ones over the Christmas period, but what is clearly needed is for that school to be relocated. It is by the side of a river that constantly breaks its banks and floods the premises. The county council understands that and is looking at the feasibility of moving it.
	The problem will be the capital programme and using the money made available through the schools programme to bring forward a project that is not currently a high priority within that programme. I asked the Secretary of State whether he could bring to bear any pressure on his counterparts in the Department for Children, Schools and Families to make a temporary arrangement for the county council in order to enable that. I have yet to have a formal response to my letter following my question in the House, and I look forward to that. I impress upon the Minister that this is a matter of great urgency for that community. Somerset county council is doing what it can within its resources, but it would like to make a move next year and it probably needs Government help to do so. I wonder whether there is any way of unlocking that money. It seems sensible in any case that we deal with facilities such as schools and make them flood-resilient as a matter of public policy. That issue has perhaps not yet been properly addressed within Government.
	My second point concerns the desperate need for proper maintenance and drainage works across the county. I say that not to criticise the work of the Environment Agency or the county council, but simply to say that the present facilitiesthe storm drains and drainage ditchesare insufficient to meet what appears to be the need. No amount of wishing new construction will make the difference needed. A step change in facilities is needed to remove surface water effectively and efficiently to prevent some of the flooding.
	The problem is often exacerbated by blockages in existing drains and ditches, which is where the issue of maintenance comes in. I know that the Environment Agency and drainage boards are aware of that issue, and would like to make further progress, but as always, we come back to resources. Because we are dealing with a large rural county with an awful lot of watercourses, it is hard to stretch the resources sufficiently to make a difference. I am convinced that if we had proper dredging of some of our rivers and proper clearing of debris and strengthening of banks on some of the smaller tributary streams, it would make a substantial difference to the way in which we deal with these matters. This is where the Pitt review proposals come in, and it is how we arrive at a common view of where the priorities lie. We might then try to unlock perhaps a little more resource than there is at the moment.
	Somerset has been knocking on the door on this matter. We recognise that the Government have, inevitably, been looking at areas that were seriously affected last year, and I do not criticise them for that. Gloucestershire and Kingston upon Hull were clearly areas of priority, but I think that Somerset is as well. We did not feature in that particular incidentalmost uniquely. It was unbelievable that we had major flooding incidents all across the country but that they did not affect Somerset. That was a reverse of the normal state of affairs, but simply because we missed out in that case, it does not mean that we do not have significant problems, which I would like the Minister to address.

David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I mentioned Gloucestershire, so it is only fair that I do.

David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that the debate is on Somerset, so I shall be careful about what I say. In the proposals to deal with flooding in and around the River Severn, the idea of the barrage as a flood prevention measure has been floatedI use that word carefully. Would he agree that while there may be arguments for the barrageI do not agree with themthey should be separated from the issue of flooding? Flooding should be dealt with in its own right and the barrage should be put on a separate pedestal and dealt with differently.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. The situation in the upper reaches of the Severn is different from that of Bridgwater bay and the Parrot basin. I cannot categorically agree with him because a barrage would be a contributing factorit would essentially act as a flood barrier at high tide for the River Parrot and its tributaries. I cannot entirely go along with his point, although I agree that they are separate issues and that we should not confuse the two.
	On the point of maintenance and physical works, I should mention the important role of accurate surveying, and I do so not least because there is an important company in my constituencyFathoms Ltd of Langportwith which I have had dealings in the past, and which employs experts in this field. It can make a significant contribution.

Jeremy Browne: There is a major housing development taking place in Norton Fitzwarren on the edge of Taunton at the moment, but it is dependent to a large extent on flood alleviation schemes so that new residents are not exposed to the risk of flooding. Would my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that the Environment Agency ensure that the developers are vigilant in taking every measure to reassure people who are moving into housing of that type, and people who already live there, that the necessary flood alleviation work is taking place?

David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I do not know the details of the Norton Fitzwarren schemeI do know Norton Fitzwarren. The solution can be found on several different levels. We should not take floodplain that is necessary for water retention, we should ensure that flood alleviation schemes are in place to protect the development in question and we should make the houses resilient and build them so that they are resilient.
	Let me move on to my third point, which is to do with river catchment management. I am a strong supporter of whole-river-catchment processes. We experimented with one some time agoI was involved with the county councilwith the River Parrot catchment area. We need to look much more holistically at whole-river-catchment processes. We need to find ways to retain water effectively and to prevent flooding at source in a much more effective way than we do at the moment. I am convinced that is the sensible way of managing river basins and I hope it will be given proper precedence.
	My next point is about resilience. Somerset has been very good and there are some lessons to learn from the area. I invited the Secretary of State to come down to Somerset and I extend that invitation to the Under-Secretary. We have learned from hard lessons and the villages that are most prone to flooding have developed community ideas to provide resilience for individual houses, as well as ways of preventing the ingress of water and of making the houses resistant to water damage once water comes in. Those ideas are being spread as best practice not only in those communities but across all communities in Somerset. A lot can be done in that area that is not being done at the moment.
	We need to recognise that the community response is an important factor. We need to identify people who have particular skills who can respond. One of my neighbours has a 4x4 and he is a member of a scheme whereby when there is bad weather, such as in the snows a few weeks ago, he is called in on a cascade system to ensure that doctors, nurses and ambulance personnel can get to people through the snow. That is a wonderful scheme and it is the sort of thing that we should be encouraging and doing more formally, so that we identify people with particular skills and ensure that they are available to help the community at the right time.
	There are also basic things that parish councils can do, which work much better when they are localised, such as ensuring that they have warning systems. They know who the vulnerable people are, so they can immediately give support. There are systems that can tell people about likely flooding even more effectively than the Environment Agency provisions. That is partly a matter of making individual forecasting more accurate to a very precise location, but it is also about ensuring that people know about the forecast. For instance, one could get the fire brigade to drive through the village at night with the siren going, so that the warning does not rely on there being a phone connection or whatever and so that people are aware that there is danger.
	It is about the simple things. I lost my car in my village under a railway bridge that flooded in the dark much more deeply than I had thought. If there was a flood gauge under that bridge, which often floods a little, I would have known immediately as I approached the bridge that there was deep water. However, I did not and it is very hard to judge, as the Minister will know, when it is dark. I have been encouraging parish councils, when they have known areas of likely flooding, to put up flood gauges. It is a simple thing to do and it is very helpful.
	It is also a matter of design, to return to the point that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). Sometimes, elevating a house when it is being built by about 3 ft makes all the difference between that house's flooding and its never flooding. It is very simple.
	My final point is about inter-agency co-operation. I think that we are beginning to get that between the Environment Agency and local authorities. May I suggest one more agency that needs to be involved, which is the Highways Agency? One of the chief problems with flooding in my area, believe it or not, is the A303, a major trunk road that was designed to carry cars and lorriesalthough it was not designed terribly well for that purposebut was not designed to prevent flooding. The result is that in some places it acts as a dam and in others it lets water through. That water then goes over large conduits and into water courses that cannot cope. We need co-ordination and understanding of those processes.
	If I had time, I would also deal with insurance. It is a key matter, but many people in Somerset are finding it increasingly difficult to get repeat insurance. We have addressed the problem locally with insurance companies, and I know that the Minister has also been doing work in that area. I should like to hear what he has to say.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this Adjournment debate. He spoke in a measured and well informed way about matters of concern nationally, but he also brought his local knowledge to the debate. He gave very good local examples of how agencies respond to these problems, and of how people work together. I challenge those who say that community spirit no longer exists to examine what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	At the outset, I should like to extend the House's sympathy to all the people around the country who have been affected by flooding. It is personally devastating and, as happened in the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, it can also lead to fatalities and injuries. Our thoughts go out to everyone affected, but there are things that we can do. In this debate, I hope that I can respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and articulate what more can be done. Flooding is a major problem for him and his constituents, and for people around the country.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he has had experience of flooding from rivers and as a result of surface water drainage. I have met several people who have gone through the trauma of flooding that has hit their properties and families, and in that context it is worth mentioning the Queen Camel school. I will not bore the House by going through the long history of that site's inadequate flood protection, but I will make sure that my colleagues in other Departments are aware of the problem. Like the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I want it to be solved. I note what he said about relocating the school: he knows that that is not in my gift, but I will make sure the matter is brought to the attention of other Ministers.
	The Government fully recognise the importance of the effective management of flood risk. Based on the Pitt report, and on the experience that we have gathered as a result of some traumatic experiences over the years, we know what we need to do. The simple statistics show that we have increased investment in flood risk management to 650 million this year, a figure that will rise to 800 million by 2010. We have more than doubled the amount of investment from the level of the late 1990s, and it will reach a record of 2.15 billion over the next three-year spending commitment period.
	I know that the House will welcome that, but there is more to be done. We must tackle issues to do with structure and organisation, and we must also look at what we can do, both nationally and with local input, in making choices on the ground. However, the investment that we have made in the past three years has helped to reduce flood risk significantly for more than 125,000 homes. Over the next two years, we hope to offer an improved standard of protection against flooding and coastal erosion for 145,000 more homes. We always base such figures on risk assessments, and that total will include 45,000 homes at the highest and most chronic level of risk.
	There are various flood defence schemes in Somerset, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Somerton and Frome has received some flood defence grant in aid in the past. He will know about the work on the dam at Bruton, and about the schemes at Ilminster, Langport and elsewhere in the county, butof course and as alwaysmore needs to be done. Currently, we are developing a long-term investment strategy for flood and coastal erosion. It will look at the long-term funding needs and pressures for the next 25 years. That has to be the way forward. The strategy will also consider how the greatest value for money for the taxpayer can be achieved in delivering such investment.
	Let me turn for a moment to the floods and water Bill. Our intention is to present the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation within the next couple of months. The draft Bill is our opportunity jointly and collectively to consolidate the existing legislative framework, which is complex and unclear. It will allow us to bring together the regulatory regimes on flood defence and coastal erosion and to ensurethe point that the hon. Gentleman was makingthat a co-ordinated approach is delivered on the ground. It will clarify roles and maximise joint working between all bodies, agencies and communities involved in flooding and coastal erosion. It will help to ensure effective protection on the ground.
	Of course, we recogniseI am sure that the hon. Gentleman does so, toothat we have gone past the old shibboleth; it is simply not beneficial or practical to protect every acre of land and every inch of coastline, particularly as climate change increases storminess, wave heights and incidents of extreme heavy rainfall. So our focus rightly must be on the assessment and management of the risk. It must be on balancing likelihoods and consequences and ensuring that the considerable investment of taxpayers' money is used to best effect. So where investment is made, it must be done in return for significant reductions in the likelihood and consequences of flooding. It must take place where the greatest benefits can be achieved.
	Let me in the time available turn to one helpful aspect: local levy funding. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are interested in the approaches that can maximise not only what the Environment Agency and others can deliver, but what can be delivered in addition on the ground. Where a scheme may not meet the national priorities for funding, it may be identified as a priority by the regional flood defence committees, which can use local levy funding. For example, in Shepton Mallet, where a proposal for work on a critical watercourse did not have enough economic benefits to meet the national funding criteria, the proposed flood defence scheme is being considered for funding using Wessex flood defence committee's local levy funds of approximately 1 million to 2 million. The scheme is currently at the feasibility study stage, and it is hoped that the design will be finished next year and the construction completed in the following year. That is a good example of how real additionality can be achieved.
	Let us turn to an example of a scheme with low benefits. Queen Camel has been mentioned. Some cases do not match the criteria. For example, recently in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the benefits were low in Queen Camel. Following flooding in 2000, there was a proposal for a flood storage scheme that would have protected 27 properties. That scheme was brought forward for discussion. It would have cost about 8 million and provided for a one-in-25-year level of protection. On that basis and against the criteria, it was deemed not to be economically viable. That does not make it easy for the people who are on the receiving end, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that we must act on the best assessment of risk and the best analysis. What else can be done?

David Heath: We can argue elsewhere about the appropriateness or otherwise of that scheme. I am concerned however that some of the risk analysis is now out of date. One-in-25-year events are now one-in-three-year events. One-in-100-year events are now one-in-twenty-year events. I wonder whether we are keeping pace with what is happening to our climate and environment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a valid point, and what we introduce in the floods and water Bill, or whatever it will be called, will address not only some of the structural issues but the long-term funding issues, as well as how we get the balance right in using national taxpayers' money to deal with what are deemed strategic, high-importance and high-risk areas and what element of that can be delivered either through additionality or otherwise. There are some interesting discussions to be had with some local input, because alternatives are sometimes close by.
	In the past couple of years, we revisited the criteria for agricultural land. I know that this will not satisfy everybody, but the value or premium put on agricultural land for reasons of food security was looked at, and it was enhanced slightly. It will always be a case of balancing considerations such as the number of houses and the value of properties and businesses concerned. There is a balance between defence of a particular part of the coast, or a particular water catchment area, and defence of something elsewhere. That is tricky, I know, but I think that we are heading in the right direction.
	I mentioned the issue of what else can be done, apart from the floods Bill. One aspect to consider is property-level flood protection. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced the establishment of a property-level flood protection grant scheme, which stands to benefit properties in high-risk areas that are not protected by a community-level scheme. The scheme is run by the Environment Agency. It is open to local authorities to apply to it, on behalf of communities. The Secretary of State announced in December that 5 million will be available to spend on that measure. I understand that the Environment Agency has already been engaged by Somerset county council to consider a future application. I cannot make any comment on that, but it is good to see applications coming forward, including from Somerset.
	On land management, the Government encourage a range of approaches to managing flood risk, and that was supported in the Pitt review. Land management practices such as the creation and restoration of wetlands and woodlands can contribute to the reduction of local flood risksand as Minister with responsibility for biodiversity, among other things, I must say that they bring many other benefits, too. We should look at that. The issue is not simply about capital expenditure on big programmes.
	I understand that in Somerset, and specifically in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, surface water was the cause of many recent flood events. In line with Sir Michael Pitt's recommendations following the floods of 2007, we are alreadywe are not waitingencouraging better surface water drainage. We announced in December that 15 million would be available to help local authorities to co-ordinate and lead local flood management work, and that the legislation required to implement Pitt's response would be published in a draft floods and water Bill this spring. There are now six local authorities actively working on that. We look forward to the results, and to engaging with other authorities later this year.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues to do with water courses. Our aim is to ensure that the risk of flooding is as low as possible, and the water courses issues are an important aspect of that. The Environment Agency routinely considers dredging and vegetation clearance from water courses; it prioritises those issues. On raising awareness of flood risks, I think that he would applaud the Think, don't sink campaign that has run in the area, stressing the dangers of driving through flood water, of which everybody should be aware.
	We are going in the right direction. We look forward to constructive engagement as we bring the floods and water Bill forward. There is a major challenge in front of us, and not simply for national Government; the question is how we engage people all the way down to regional and local government level, and how we engage communities themselves. The solutions, and the ability to find a way forward, lie in the hands of us all. We will increasingly be subject to major flooding incidents, right across the country
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).